Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

RIVER MEDWAY (FLOOD RELIEF) BILL.

Lords amendments agreed to.

ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

CROMARTY PETROLEUM ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

European Parliament (Direct Elections)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost of holding direct elections to a European Parliament should such elections be held at a time independent from any other elections.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): The cost will depend on the nature of the arrangements decided by Parliament but is likely to be about £10 million if normal parliamentary election procedures are followed.

Mr. Marten: As this is probably the last time that the Home Secretary will be answering Questions at the Dispatch Box, although I have disagreed with him about the Common Market may I wish him well in his new job and thank him for the services he has given to Parlia-

ment? Will he ensure that British money is used in the elections here and not money which has been imported from the Community?

Mr. Jenkins: I am, of course, grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I have a number of further Questions to answer, and I may ask a few questions in the future. I do not want to get too early into the Dame Nellie Melba position which this sometimes is.

Mr. Russell Kerr: She was Australian.

Mr. Jenkins: There is nothing wrong with that. I hope and believe that, as in the referendum campaign, which cost about the same amount and of which I think the hon. Gentleman was in favour, the money used will be British.

Miss Boothroyd: May I associate this side of the House with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten)? My right hon. Friend will certainly be missed at the Dispatch Box during what is a unique occasion in this Parliament. Will he draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Banbury the evidence given by the local authority associations to the Select Committee in which they said that to hold direct elections to the European Parliament on the same day as any other election would cost more than if direct elections were held at a different time? Does my right hon. Friend sympathise with the views expressed by the local authority associations?

Mr. Jenkins: Yes. I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. If it is necessary I shall draw the attention of the hon. Member for Banbury to the report to which she has referred. At one stage, it was my own view that direct elections might be linked perhaps with local authority elections, but having considered the matter I am increasingly persuaded that that would not be desirable.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does the Home Secretary accept that the issues involved in the direct elections would be so important that many people will be glad that he has been converted to the idea of letting them stand on their own feet and not allowing them to become mixed up with local elections? I genuinely


join with other hon. Members in welcoming the Home Secretary to the European Parliament.

Mr. Jenkins: I am not sure that I shall be allowed to be a Member of the European Parliament. My own conversion is less important than what the Select Committee is likely to say on the matter. We all look forward to the report.

Mr. Dalyell: May I warn my right hon. Friend that he will not be rid of me, because I shall he asking him questions at Strasbourg? Will he reflect on the sheer cost of the nomadic nature of the European Parliament?

Mr. Jenkins: I had probably better reserve my comments on that, although I note what my hon. Friend, who speaks from considerable experience, has said.

Temporary Permit Entrants

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring to an end the practice by which persons who enter the United Kingdom on a visitor's permit or on any other temporary basis are subsequently accepted for settlement.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have examined this suggestion carefully, but I do not believe that a blanket prohibition would be appropriate.

Mr. Lawson: I am grateful that the Home Secretary has examined the suggestion carefully. Will he reconsider the matter? Is it not the case that the only effective form of immigration control—and he is in favour of it—is control at the point of entry? Is it not further the case that the practice of coming here on a temporary basis, overstaying and then maybe later applying for acceptance for settlement is a major loophole in the existing system of immigration control? If the Home Secretary wants to make immigration control effective, will he end this back-door immigration?

Mr. Jenkins: I am against back-door immigration and very much in favour of effective immigration control. I said "blanket prohibitions", which would mean that anyone who came here and

entered into a genuine marriage would have to remove himself or herself, and that no one who had been here a long time could ever be given the right of settlement. Trying to extend the period of stay to defeat controls no longer works as it did before. The length of period here alone does not give immunity from removal.
I would not like to say that anyone who came here and whose circumstances changed would always have to go away. That would be different from the practice of settlement which has applied to English people going to America and to Americans coming here over a long period of time.

Mr. Fernyhough: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the door to immigration was opened to a greater extent than ever before when we entered the Common Market?

Mr. Jenkins: It may be that the door was opened, but the number of people who want to pass through it is very few indeed.

Mr.Lane: Are the Home Office records yet computerised? Many of us believe that that would be an important step forward in stopping the kind of abuse which has developed in this very difficult area of immigration control.

Mr. Jenkins: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a lot of experience in this matter. We endeavour to keep track as far as we possibly can, but I am not sure whether computerisation would be a complete answer. There is certainly a problem in keeping track of people once they are in this country and of what they do.

Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps I may indulge in a personal remark. I am one of those who deeply regret on personal grounds the right hon. Gentleman's removal or change from this Parliament.
In the Hawley Report there was emphasis on the position of graduates from India at the present time when there is considerable unemployment there. It referred to their desiring at all costs to come here as visitors and then stay on. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this situation carefully and agree that only in very exceptional circumstances should such people be granted the right to permanent settlement?

Mr. Jenkins: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Indeed, I thank him for the way in which he has discharged many of the difficult tasks he has faced as Shadow Home Secretary.
I wish to make it clear that, although, as I said to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) I do not think that a blanket prohibition is necessary, I am firmly against people coming here temporarily and being allowed, as a general rule or as anything approaching a general rule, to stay on.
What I am aiming to do is to apply, in the most effective way I can, the immigration rules. It does not necessarily mean that the solution advanced by the hon. Member for Blaby, while well worth consideration, is necessarily right. I am not convinced that it would help to solve our particular problems, and it would produce certain undesirable features. I agree, however, with the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) that no one should think that, by coming here for a particular purpose and then trying to change that purpose and trying to play out time, he will acquire immunity.

Police Bill

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received from chief constables about the Police Bill.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Chief officers have recently reaffirmed their opposition to the new complaints scheme introduced by the Police Bill, and expressed anxiety—which I believe will prove to be mistaken—that some aspects of the scheme may undermine their authority.

Mr. Beith: Is there anything in the comments that the right hon. Gentleman has received which makes him feel that chief officers of police will not do all they can, once the Bill is law, to make the scheme work effectively? Is he as strong in his faith as we are that the scheme will redound considerably to the benefit of the police when the effectiveness of their own internal inquiries is demonstrated by it?
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that we look forward to working with him in his new post?

Mr. Jenkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
I confirm that it is my view that the Bill will enhance public confidence, which is already high, in the police. Secondly, I find it almost impossible to imagine that chief officers will not co-operate in working the Bill. I am fully confident that they will. It would be an extraordinary position if chief officers of police were to set themselves up as the main upholders of the law in their localities against the settled wish of Parliament.
There have been some divisions in Parliament about this matter. It has been difficult to produce the best result, but the Bill was carried without a Division on Second Reading and went through this House and the House of Lords. With a lot of cross-Bench support in the House of Lords, the Government defeated, which is not usual there, an amendment which might have been slightly more acceptable to the chief officers. I respect their point of view, but I absolutely discountenance any suggestion that they would not operate, as guardians of the rule of law in their localities, a Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that he has sufficient power under the Bill to control the decisions of chief constables? Is he aware that the Chief Constable of Derbyshire has completely ignored his advice and that of the police committee on the question of supplying police support for the Derbyshire Royal Infirmary accident flying squad?

Mr. Jenkins: I must remind my hon. Friend that the Police Bill has nothing to do with that proposition, about which he has spoken to me before. That would be a question not of police complaints but of my interfering in the operational discharge of a chief officer's duties. My hon. Friend has been to see me about this matter. I have taken account of his representations and have passed them on, but I am not prepared to interfere in these operational matters of chief officers of police.

Mr. Aitken: On the day when we are expecting the announcement of painful public expenditure cuts, will the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late stage, have


second thoughts about the wisdom of spending at least £I million of taxpayers' money on a Bill which will only make it easier to make complaints against the police?

Mr. Jenkins: I do not agree with that figure. The sum will be very small indeed—much nearer £100,000 in the next financial year and then rising a little above that. I have no intention of allowing the Bill, which has gone through with a certain amount of travail, to be set aside by the opposition of the hon. Gentleman or even by that of any chief officer of police, however distinguished.

Mr. Whitehead: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's action in resisting the amendment in the House of Lords is greatly to be commended? That proposal, put forward at the instance of chief officers, would have struck at the heart of the Bill. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, if chief officers go ahead with their threat to resign, though regretted those resignations must be accepted?

Mr. Jenkins: I am not aware of any threat to resign. The amendment debated in the House of Lords would have meant that the two independent members would merely have been assessors. It was defeated in the other place by a quite substantial majority. I think that the amendment would not have been in accordance with the views of the House of Commons generally or, I suspect, of many people in the House. The Bill will therefore return from the House of Lords with no amendments which I think we need resist.

Mr. Alison: The right hon. Gentleman earlier mentioned Dame Nellie Melba. Will he consider humming quietly to himself, between now and leaving for Brussels, that a policeman's lot is not a happy one, and leaving it happier by taking his Bill to Brussels with him?

Mr. Jenkins: I hardly ever hum, mainly because I cannot do so tunefully. But I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman suggests would be the right way in which to proceed. In every country in the world there has been a general desire to have an independent element for complaints against the police. It has been very difficult to achieve in practice, and the police, with all their many virtues, have always in the last resort resisted it

very hard. There has been resistance by the police to such practices in other countries, although from the Police Federation here there was perhaps less than from some other bodies.
I would not claim that we have found the perfect solution, but I believe that it is as good a solution as we shall get for many years to come. We should now stick to it and put it into operation. I have every confidence that the police themselves, who above all ought to be law-abiding men, will co-operate in carry-the scheme into effect.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How soon does my right hon. Friend expect the Bill to be in operation?

Mr. Jenkins: Some time in the first part of 1977.

Mr. Le Marchant: Is the Home Secretary aware of the confidence which everyone has in Derbyshire in the impartiality of the actions of the Chief Constable and other members of the police force at all times? The people of Derbyshire realise that, if the police cannot fulfil all the duties we would like them to fulfil, it is because the money is simply not available.

Mr. Jenkins: I am aware that there has been a considerable dispute about this in Derbyshire and that strong views are held on both sides. However, the way in which the police operate is not a matter for the Home Secretary or his Department.

Parole System

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he remains satisfied with the operation of the parole system.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): In general, yes, but we continue to consider, with the board, how the system might be improved.

Mr. McCrindle: Is it not clear that from the point of view of prisoners one of the defects of the scheme is the failure to tell a prisoner why his application for parole has been refused? On the other hand, one of the defects from the public point of view is that the Home Office refuses to publish statistics of crimes committed by people who are on


parole. If the Minister would direct his attention to both these aspects of the parole system, it would be materially improved from the point of view of both prisoners and the public.

Mr. John: If the hon. Member had read the speech which my right hon. Friend made to the New Bridge Society, he would have found that my right hon. Friend said we should try to move to a position in which prisoners who are refused parole are given some reasons for the refusal. The 1974 report of the Parole Board made clear the objections and difficulties involved, but it is carrying out a limited experiment to see whether a method can be found to achieve this end. My right hon. Friend feels that this is a matter of priority for action.

Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that there must be something wrong with the system when we have a man, Des Warrent still remaining in gaol for fighting to improve the wages and conditions of his fellow workers and at the same time those involved in lining their own pockets—I refer to members of the Poulson gang—are allowed out on parole in order to carry on in the same old fashion as before?

Mr. John: My hon. Friend will know that the Parole Board takes account of these matters when it considers applications for parole. He should cast his mind back to the considerable debate which we had at the last Question Time for the Home Department when the question of behaviour in prison was said to be central to this issue.

Vandalism

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he remains satisfied with the present measures to combat the increase in the crime of vandalism by those under the age of 17 years.

Mr. John: We fully share the widespread concern about offences of this kind. We are satisfied that the police and the courts have adequate powers to enable them to deal with juveniles who commit offences of criminal damage. However, these offences present the police with special problems of prevention and detection. Responsible parental concern

and control, and the watchfulness of the local community, have a vital part to play.

Mr. Morrison: Does the Minister of State agree that one way of reducing vandalism is to make parents pay in every case for the repair of the damage done by their children?

Mr. John: No. I think that blanket solutions are highly dangerous [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If hon. Members would only listen, instead of talking from a sedentary position, they might find out why. We are concerned with giving magistrates adequate power to carry out their duties, and the way in which they discharge their duties must be for them. Conservatives would be very concerned if there was dictation or political interference with the freedom of the courts.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my hon. Friend agree that a relatively inexpensive, efficient and reformative response to the problem of vandalism would be the extension of community service orders to those under 16, so that they could make some retribution to society for the damage they cause?

Mr. John: We are considering a possible extension, but we are more concerned with the fulfilment of the original ideas of the scheme.

Mr. Graham Page: Why should we not bring back the birch for the young vandals?

Hon. Members: Fascist!

Mr. John: Because we have moved out of the antediluvian state which the right hon. Member still seems to be in.

Mr. Corbett: May I press my hon. Friend concerning community service orders? In this matter of vandalism, surely the emphasis should be placed on enabling those who have engaged in such activities and who have been convicted to be shown that they have a useful rôle to play in the community. Does my hon. Friend agree with the impression I have gained that he is being neutral about the positive aspects of community service orders?

Mr. John: The impression which my hon. Friend has gained must be his own. I assure him that I am neither neutral


nor negative. Community service orders have a useful purpose, but there are financial constraints and no alternative measure is without public expenditure.

Mr. Lawrence: Does not the Minister agree that one of the substantial steps that the Government might take to check the increase of juvenile crime is to implement speedily the proposals of the Select Committee which considered the working of the Children and Young Persons Act? Can he give a likely date for the implementation of those proposals?

Mr. John: The Government's response and their project for action have been published already. Such measures as call for Government action are being considered, and consultations are being pursued.

Urban Aid Programme

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from voluntary organisations about their rôle in the structure of the urban aid programme.

Mr. John: Papers have been submitted recently by the Standing Conference of Councils for Voluntary Service and by the Greater Manchester Council for Voluntary Service.

Mr. Arnold: Is it not the case that, since local authorities must take a contribution of 25 per cent. if an application under the urban aid programme from a voluntary organisation is to be approved by the Department, a large number of problems, particularly in a period of financial stringency, immediately arise? Therefore, could a grant be made covering the sum applied for, which would not necessarily be the total cost of the project?

Mr. John: We do not believe that a change in the criteria would be desirable or would lead to greater take-up. A large number of applications for grants under the urban aid programme—about 20 per cent. of all approved expenditure—have been for projects run by voluntary organisations.

Mr. Loyden: The urban aid programme is unnecessarily confusing and

complicated for the applicants. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time he discussed with his right hon. Friend a means of overcoming this problem and making applications easier, so that resources are directed where they are most needed?

Mr. John: I am always willing to discuss ways in which the situation might be improved. But if it is unnecessarily complex to have a local authority set out its own priorities for its own area, I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. Local authorities can best settle the order of priorities in their own areas.

Prison Remands (Schoolgirls)

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with progress in phasing out the remand of schoolgirls to prison.

Mr. John: The Government attach great importance to phasing out the remand of girls under the age of 17 to prison. With a view to ending the remand of 14-year-old girls to prison service establishments, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is engaged in urgent consultations with the local authority associations, in particular on the ability of the community homes system to contain the small number of very violent girls of this age. We are also in consultation with the authorities concerned over the conditions to be prescribed in Regulations under Section 69 of the Children Act 1975 for the issue of certificates of unruliness.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My right hon. Friend's action in ending the remand of girls of 14 to prison is greatly appreciated. Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that there are at present three boys and three girls aged 15 in local prisons and over 132 schoolboys and girls in remand centres? In spite of the very welcome action by my right hon. Friend, further progress is urgently needed so that we may end the remand of all schoolchildren to prison service establishments.

Mr. John: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his recognition of acceptance of the principle involved. However, the provision of the necessary alternative places in community homes is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that because of the lack of facilities magistrates often have difficulty in finding places for young boys and girls who need temporarily to be kept in custody? Is he looking at the problem generally as well as at the particular question of schoolgirls?

Mr. John: Yes; I am well aware of what my hon. Friend has said. We are proceeding with a programme which will increase the number of secure places in observation and assessment centres. That will materially help, particularly in securing accommodation for girls.

Members' Correspondence

Mr. Mike Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to speed up his Department's replies to Members' letters.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The handling of all correspondence is kept under review, and letters from Members are accorded a high priority of treatment. Many of the letters which I and my colleagues receive about individual cases call for detailed inquiries, often outside the Home Office, to be made, and a full, early reply cannot then reasonably be expected. In such cases an interim reply is usually sent.

Mr. Thomas: I understand my right hon. Friend's difficulties and those of his Department in this respect. I join those who wish him well on his departure in due course to Brussels. As a parting present, however, will he see whether he can bring his Department a little higher up the league which shows the speed with which Departments reply to Members' letters? At the moment I have the feeling that his Department is at the bottom and that it takes the longest to reply.

Mr. Jenkins: It is certainly very near the bottom, and I agree with my hon. Friend to that extent. There are some good reasons for this. A lot of the inquiries we receive have to be sent out, particularly to the police, who are fairly slow in replying. Various other considerations of this sort must be taken into account.
Since hon. Members have been kind enough to make certain valedictory

remarks, perhaps I may make certain valedictory comments about MPs' correspondence. It would be desirable to have faster replies and it might be desirable to have shorter replies. There is no possibility of devoting more resources in a heavily-burdened Civil Service to replying to the many letters that we receive from Members. I have the slight feeling that at present too much attention is devoted to immensely long replies which involve collecting comments from other Departments, and it might be more appropriate to give slightly less comprehensive replies rather more quickly.
Compared with some time ago, I detect an increasing tendency on the part of hon. Members on both sides when their constituents write to them asking for their views on some issues—it might be immigration or capital punishment—automatically to send the letters to the Department and to expect the Department to provide their views for them. Hon. Members have a certain responsibility to provide their own views to constituents.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that throughout my parliamentary life, and regardless of who was Home Secretary at any given time, the reputation of the Home Office was always inferior to that of any other Department on the question of dealing with correspondence? Will the right hon. Gentleman distinguish the last few weeks of his period in office by instigating a thorough inquiry as to why that is so?

Mr. Jenkins: There are certain valid reasons for that. As I have indicated, we tend to reply at too great a length, but we also have to make a great number of outside inquiries. This is a serious position and I pay attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Racial Hatred incitement (Convictions)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge on 24th June, he will collect statistics on a basis which distinguishes the nationality of those convicted under Section 6 of the Race Relations Act 1965.

Mr. John: Criminal statistics are not normally collected on this basis, and we doubt if the usefulness of information about nationality would justify making special arrangements.

Mr. Stokes: Is not that answer ridiculous humbug? Does it not smack of the secrecy of the Star Chamber? Why does not the Minister say outright what the nationality is? Is this a cover-up for persecuting the English nation?

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman has a somewhat affectionate place as a licensed buffoon in this Chamber—

Mr. Wiggin: Withdraw.

Mr. Gow: Disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The term "buffoon" should not be applied to anyone in the Chamber.

Mr. John: Then I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker. But the facts that the hon. Gentleman rambles about here are not germane to Section 6 of the Act. That section deals with incitement to racial hatred, and the Act states that people who incite to racial hatred shall be dealt with whatever their nationality. There is, therefore, no question of the conspiracy which the hon. Gentleman seems to see in everything.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: I shall take it immediately after Questions.

Mr. Heffer: It relates to your ruling a moment ago, Mr. Speaker. However, I shall raise it at the end of Questions.

Mr. Speaker: I shall be obliged to the hon. Gentleman if he will do that.

Mr. Whitelaw: I might not agree with everything that is said by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), but the Minister should understand that my hon. Friend holds views very strongly and he puts them forward most sincerely in the House.

Mr. John: The depth of conviction is not of itself justification for the views that are put forward.

British Broadcasting Corporation

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to meet the Chairman of the BBC.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have no immediate plans to meet the Chairman of the BBC.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the excellent suggestion by Professor Alan Thompson, the Chairman of BBC Scotland, that Scotland should have another national anthem, would it not be possible to have an anthem that is more Socialist oriented? Would it not be possible to sing that anthem at the end of every Session of Parliament, provided that we could keep the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) away from the Mace?

Mr. Jenkins: Whether or not Scotland should have another national anthem, either more or less Socialist oriented, is not a subject for conversation between the Chairman of BBC in Scotland and me.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman take an early opportuniy to advise the Chairman of the BBC that Members of Parliament do not usually make formal complaints lightly about political bias in BBC programmes? Is he satisfied with the ability of the BBC to investigate complaints of that nature?

Mr. Jenkins: I am not sure that I would absolutely underwrite the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. But I hope that the BBC takes with appropriate seriousness the questions that are put to it and that it has appropriate machinery for dealing with them.

Mr. Litterick: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should see the Chairman of the BBC as soon as possible? Will he then raise the case of Mr. Denis McShane, who was dismissed by the BBC for having participated as a bogus contributor to a radio 'phone-in programme on the instructions of his producer? Will he further raise with the chairman the fact that the practice of putting on bogus contributors to these programmes is a fraud which is being perpetrated at public expense? Is he aware that we would like to know how widespread it is?

Mr. Jenkins: To be honest, I have no idea what my hon. Friend is talking about. If he will write to me about the matter, I shall gladly look into it. I am certainly not in favour of fraudulent 'phone-in programmes with fraudulent participants. The question of BBC staff policy must, however be a matter for the Chairman. If my hon. Friend will write to me, I shall inform myself of the matter and if I think it necessary I shall pass it on to the Chairman.

Mr. Thompson: Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the Chairman of the BBC the need to provide radio and television learners courses in the Gaelic language in Scotland comparable to the standard of Ochen' Priyatno or Svidanie v Moskvye or, if the Secretary of State prefers it, Dewch i Siarad or Cam Ymlaen?

Mr. Jenkins: That is a matter that can certainly be considered, but I should have hoped that the spontaneous force of these indigenous languages, deeply rooted in local culture, would not need to be instructed exclusively by a central organisation from London.

Race Relations

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government will publish their comments on the 1974–75 report of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, "The Organisation of Race Relations Administration".

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The Government have given a good deal of consideration to the Select Committee's valuable and wide-ranging report, and we are planning to publish a full reply as soon as possible.

Mr. Lane: As some of the Select Committee's recommendations were about resources, and in view of recent reports in some Sunday newspapers, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government are about to announce a new programme of aid to inner city areas?

Mr. Jenkins: The Government are well aware that aside from the general need, which I think the House knows I fully support, for stringency in public expenditure, there is a special problem in inner city areas. I hope that we shall be able to consider it constructively even in the

present climate. As the House will be aware, the Race Relations Bill Standing Committee imposed a general duty on local authorities against the advice of the Government. However, having considered the matter I should have no wish to resist that course, and that duty will stand.

Mr. Dykes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of his best acts in this area before going to the presidency of the European Commission would be to provide reassurance that there will be an improvement in genuinely good race relations by tightening the restrictions on new entrants?

Mr. Jenkins: I do not believe that that question can be usefully answered strung on to a Question about urban deprivation and the recommendations and report of the Select Committee. I have said firmly and clearly—this remains my view—that effective control of immigration is essential to good race relations. Exactly where we operate that frontier, bearing in my mind our commitment, which we intend to preserve, and certain considerations bearing on family unity as well as United Kingdom passport holders, is a matter that we debated at length in the House. It would be a mistake to think that I could advance the argument in the course of a short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.

County Council Electoral Boundaries

Mr. George Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress being made by the Boundary Commission in establishing electoral areas for the county council elections to be held in 1977.

Mr. John: The Local Government Boundary Commission for England last month started the first of its reviews of county electoral arrangements in the county of Northumberland. I understand that it is unlikely that any of these reviews will be completed in time to take effect for the 1977 county council elections.

Mr. Rodgers: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the enormous difficulties that will be caused as a consequence of the register not being prepared in time? In Lancashire it is obvious that we shall


have to revert to the 1973 electoral register. In this rather ludicrous situation, would it not be possible to expedite the provision of the electoral register for 1977?

Mr. John: Although I recognise what my hon. Friend has said about the difficulties of working to the 1973 electoral areas, I do not believe that it would be possible in this instance to meet his request.

Mr. John Evans: In view of the already heavy burden that the Boundary Commission has to bear, will it be possible for it to draw up the constituency boundaries for direct elections to the European Parliament in 1978 sufficiently early for the political parties to select their candidates and put their programmes before the people?

Mr. John: We believe that that will be possible, but I have no doubt that there is a heavy burden on the commission at present.

Mr. Marten: Would it not be absolutely sensible for the county council boundaries to be finished first before the commission goes on to the boundaries for the European Parliament, because the two are not unrelated?

Mr. John: I do not think that that arises from the original problem. In fact, the commission is proceeding as best it can to district and and county reviews as soon as possible.

Mr. Ford: Is my hon. Friend aware that he may well receive a proposal for the alteration of the ward boundaries in the Bradford metropolitan district, about which there are diverse views? When he comes to make Orders as a result of the recommendations of the commission, will he take carefully into account any objections made to them on behalf of working people as they apply to the ward boundaries to which I have referred?

Mr. John: I take note of my hon. Friend's pre-emptive strike.

BLYTH

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Blyth.

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Blyth.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Adley: Now that the Salmon Report has been published, and in the light of the third point of Mrs. Ward-Jackson's addendum at page 118, will the Prime Minister seek to initiate a public inquiry into the relevance of her remarks regarding the activities of local government in the North-East?

The Prime Minister: I have not studied the report in detail although I have read the conclusions. I shall look up what is said in page 118. As regards an independent inquiry, I understand that this has been considered many times. The view is taken that, as criminal proceedings arising from the various ramifications of the Poulson affair have not been concluded, it would not be right to consider setting up any other sort of inquiry at this moment. However, later in the year we shall be able to consider the matter again.

Mr. William Hamilton: Wherever my right hon. Friend pays an official visit in the near future, will he take the opportunity of attacking the cruelty and stupidity of the parliamentary tactics adopted by the Leader of the Opposition which result in dragging sick Members to the House, including Members with debilitating illnesses and infections such as mumps, in addition to preventing Ministers— [Interruption]— from attending conferences of major international importance?

The Prime Minister: I think that there has been a revulsion against the tactics of bringing certain Members to the House earlier this week. Anyone who saw some of those who were brought here, as some of us did, would believe that there must be a much better way of conducting our affairs. I understand that there may be some improved arrangements next week, but it is not for me to comment on that at the moment. As regards infectious diseases, I hope that my hon. Friend was not close enough to anybody to catch any.

Mrs. Thatcher: Perhaps the best way of avoiding these things is not to have five guillotine measures in one day. Why could not the Prime Minister follow the example of the Opposition and refuse to bring in his most sick Members? We did not bring in all of ours.

The Prime Minister: That is not quite the information I had, or the impression that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) was conveying about certain sick Opposition Members. Perhaps the best remedy, if we cannot put our own affairs in order, is to have a large Labour majority at the next General Election.

Mr. Tebbit: As the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman) did not feel able to take part in our debates on the Education Bill, would not Blyth be a suitable place for the Prime Minister to make a speech explaining whether he believes in freedom of choice in schooling for all children or only for the children of the rich and powerful?

The Prime Minister: I have every intention of making a speech on a number of educational matters at an appropriate moment in the autumn. As regards the education of any children, that is the right of the parents and no one else.

CLAYTON-LE-WOODS

Mr. George Rodgers: asked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Clayton-le-Woods.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Rodgers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he should have the opportunity to visit Clayton-le-Woods, which is within the boundary of the Central Lancashire New Town, he would find great concern that the public expenditure cuts may result in houses being provided without the amenities and educational facilities which should go with them? Can he assure us that there is no danger of cuts of this nature?

The Prime Minister: I must ask my hon. Friend to await the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer later. Our plans will affect

new towns, among other matters, but I cannot go into detail at the moment.

Mr. Tim Renton: As the Prime Minister is not going to Clayton-le-Woods will he find time on the way to his Sussex farm to meet teenagers in my constituency and explain why he has not declared redundant his grotesquely incompetent Secretary of State for Employment for his total failure to deal with the problems of jobs for school leavers?

The Prime Minister: A question phrased in that way seems to import more political prejudice than concern for the real problem. I imagine that that was the hon. Gentleman's intention. We are considering what additional measures may be brought in to facilitate the employment of more school leavers in the next few weeks and months.

Mr. Cryer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the number of school leavers and other people who are unemployed is due to the crisis of capitalism, the system which Opposition Members support hook, line and sinker? Does he not also agree that swingeing public expenditure cuts would produce even more unemployment and would represent a yielding to international bankers? Is not the real task of the Labour Government to seek Socialist solutions against the support of capitalism by hon. Members opposite?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend seems to be making a point that is more consistent with a speech than with a visit to Clayton-le-Woods. There is no doubt that what happens on public expenditure is bound to have an impact on unemployment. We have to balance these matters, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer will show in a few minutes' time.

Mr. Gow: Regardless of whether the Prime Minister goes to Clayton-le-Woods, will he repeat to the House what he said a moment ago that decisions on the education of children should be taken by parents and not by the State?

The Prime Minister: That is certainly my view and it is the view of the great majority of people in this country, who now have a greater freedom of choice and a wider curricula than ever before.

BONN (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

Mr. Dykes: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official visit to Bonn.

The Prime Minister: My visit to Bonn on 30th June was in accordance with the informal understanding reached between my predecessor and Chancellor Schmidt that the Heads of Government of our two countries should aim to meet for bilateral talks about every six months. As has become customary at these meetings the talks were conducted in an informal manner and covered the questions of common concern which were uppermost in our minds. A particularly welcome feature this time was the inclusion in part of our discussions of members of the Bullock Committee on Industrial Democracy. They were already in the Federal Republic and, at Herr Schmidt's invitation, joined the talks along with representatives of German management and trade unions.

Mr. Dykes: Was the Prime Minister able to reassure the German Chancellor that his commitment to introduce legislation for direct elections to the European Parliament in the next Session is firm, definite and unequivocal?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the many answers I have already given on this matter in the House. The position remains exactly the same as it was last time I answered these questions.

Mr. Hooley: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that these private tête-à-têtes between the President of France and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom or the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Federal Republic are a very unsatisfactory way of conducting the affairs of the EEC and are provoking serious resentment among other members?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure that that is true. There has been a substantial tour of visits by Heads of Government. Some visits have been more useful than others. I have found my talks valuable in concerting our approach, not on Community questions alone but on much wider questions concerning our policies in other parts of the world.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Did the right hon. Gentleman make clear to the Federal German Chancellor what he has never made clear to the people of this country—namely, whether he believes that freedom of parental choice in education should be available in the public sector as well as in the private sector?

The Prime Minister: We did not discuss education.

Mr. John Evans: When my right hon. Friend next visits Europe, will he take up with EEC Heads of Government the question of economic aid to Italy? Can he tell us whether the statement of the West German Chancellor that there would be no economic aid from the Community if there were Communist participation in the Italian Government represents the policy of the British Government?

The Prime Minister: I followed the exchange between Herr Schmidt and the Press on these matters. There was an exchange of views in Puerto Rico on the general matter, but if there were a request from the Italian Government—and none has yet been received—Communist participation in that Government would be a complicating factor. That was the nature of the discussion, but no conclusions were reached.

Mr. Marten: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that German and Belgian politicians want to turn Europe into a federal State, as do many of the Christian Democrat parties? Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, that neither of the main political parties in this country wants anything like that? Is it not only fair to make that clear?

The Prime Minister: I admire the pertinacity with which the hon. Gentleman pursues his case, but I do not believe that saying something 77 times makes it more valid than saying it once. The hon. Gentleman and the House know my views on this matter very well.

Mr. Greville Janner: When my right hon. Friend met representatives of the Bullock Committee, was he able to ascertain whether their report would be available on time so that legislation on worker participation can be introduced next Session?

The Prime Minister: The exchange of views that we had on industrial democracy was extremely valuable to both sides. The British representatives, who included employers and trade unionists as well as independent members, felt that what had happened and was happening in Germany offered a great many lessons. In a private discussion with me Lord Bullock said that his committee was making rapid progress, but I cannot promise on his behalf when the report will be ready. As soon as it is received, we shall begin consultations with a view to introducing legislation, but I am naturally unable to say when that will be.

GREENWICH

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Greenwich.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Cartwright: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he were to visit Greenwich he could meet members of the Labour group on the local authority, who have already made substantial cuts in their aims and aspirations and in their services to the people and who are willing to co-operate with the Government in maintaining a genuine standstill on spending? Is he also aware, however, that they would make absolutely clear that they cannot accept further cuts which would have a major impact on families in real need?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the situation in Greenwich and of the cooperation extended by the Labour group. What concerns me about local authority expenditure is that when it is necessary to economise many authorities choose to cut services in preference to staff. As the purpose of the staff is to provide the services, I hope that they will keep a proper balance in these matters.

Mr. Mayhew: Would not the Prime Minister, if he addressed the council in Greenwich, have an opportunity of explaining the direct link between the expenditure bonanza during the Government's first 18 months in office, which was the price for their two General Election victories, and the collapse of confidence which has led to the no doubt

inadequate cuts which are about to be announced?

The Prime Minister: I should certainly explain that local authority expenditure which qualifies for rate support grant has gone up by about three times in the space of three years. That, alas, is not expenditure over which the Government have direct control. They pay 65 per cent. or some proportion or percentage of it. However, there is no direct control over current expenditure by local authorities. That is undoubtedly part of the source of our difficulties at present.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 26TH JuLY—Remaining stages of the Dock Works Regulation Bill.
Motions on the Acquisition from Crown (Grants) Order and on the Compulsory Acquisition of Public Authorities (Compensation) Order.
TUESDAY 27TH JULY, WEDNESDAY 28TH JULY AND THURSDAY 29TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill.
At the end on Tuesday, remaining stages of the Licensing (Scotland) Bill.
At the end on Thursday, motion on the European Communities (Iron and Steel Employees Re-Adaptation Benefits) (Amendment) Regulations.
FRIDAY 30TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Supplementary Benefit (Amendment) Bill and motion on the Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Regulations.
Motions on the Consumer Transactions (Restrictions on Statements) Order and on the Mail Order Transactions (Information) Order.
MONDAY 2ND AUGUST—Supply [29th Allotted Day]: The Question will be put on all outstanding Votes.
Subject for debate to be announced.

Mrs. Thatcher: Assuming that the statement we are about to hear will be of considerable moment, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to provide time for a debate before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Foot: I think that we should await the statement. Clearly that matter can be discussed between the usual channels. Other hon. Members may also wish to make representations. We shall consider them and see what we should arrange for a later time.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should explain to the House that questions on business will come out of the time that has been allocated for the Rent (Agriculture) Bill. Therefore, I propose to call very few hon. Members, as there is a major statement to follow.

Mr. Powell: Has the Leader of the House yet decided when the motion for the Summer Recess is likely to be moved?

Mr. Foot: I am not quite sure on which day it will be in the last week. I shall be announcing it in the last week. If I can give an earlier indication to the House, I shall do so.

Mr. John Mendelson: Does the Lord President recall that he gave an undertaking a fortnight ago that the Secretary of State for Employment would make a statement on further measures to alleviate unemployment, particularly among school leavers? Does he agree that the figures published this week underline the need for such a statement? Is my right hon. Friend able to give the date when the Secretary of State for Employment will make such a statement?

Mr. Foot: I cannot give a date, but next week my right hon. Friend will certainly make a statement to the House on the subject.

Mr. Thorpe: Does the Leader of the House recollect the undertaking given by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) that the Government would publish a White Paper setting out their proposals on devolution for England shortly before publication of the Bill relating to Wales and Scotland? Does that undertaking still stand? If so, when may we expect the White Paper?

Mr. Foot: We certainly hope that a statement or a White Paper will be published in the summer well before publication of the Bill.

Sir Frederic Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman is probably aware that there is a lot of disquiet in Gibraltar following the negative talks which took place recently in London. As, rather unusually, the Secretary of State has not made a statement in the House, but only given a Written Answer, will the Leader of the House have a word with his right hon. Friend to ascertain whether he will make a short statement about the talks before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Foot: I will consult my right hon. Friend about that matter. It may be that, as often happens in nearly the last week before a recess, a number of statements will be made. The House must take that into account. We do not want to take too much of the time of the House with statements. I shall look at the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mrs. Jeger: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early-Day Motion No. 399, signed by over 60 hon. Members on both sides of the House, on the question of Cyprus?
[That this House gives a general welcome to the report of the Select Committee on Cyprus; considers it has highlighted some major failings in foreign policy; and believes that Great Britain, as a guarantor power and fellow member of the Commonwealth, has a special responsibility to work for a free and independent Cyprus.]
Is it not time, two years this week after the brutal Turkish invasion of Cyprus, that this House considered in some degree the position of that Commonwealth country?

Mr. Foot: There have been occasions when the situation in Cyprus could have been debated, but I cannot offer any prospect of a debate on that subject before the recess.

Sir David Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Drought Bill is much more urgent than any item that has been announced for next week? When will he introduce that Bill? Shall we have it before the recess?

Mr. Foot: The Drought Bill has been introduced in another place and it will


be coming to this House. The Government intend that the Bill should be carried through all its necessary stages. We recognise the importance of the Bill.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall allow three more questions.

Mr. Watt: Does the Leader of the House agree that it would be wrong for the House to rise for the Summer Recess without discussing the urgent position regarding the extension of fishing limits? If the Government cannot find time for it, will he urge the official Opposition to give their Supply Day over to this subject?

Mr. Foot: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have better success in making representations to the official Opposition than I might have. It is certainly open to him and to others to do so. I cannot promise a debate on that subject before the recess, despite our recognition of its importance.

Mr. Peyton: Will the Leader of the House tell us why he did not announce the business in the form of a statement since that would have had the effect of not taking time out of the time allowed for the Rent (Agriculture) Bill?

Mr. Foot: I understand that there were some consultations and that what we proposed was acceptable. We have put down a motion to assist the House. I believe that the motion greatly assists the House in that respect.

Mr. Faulds: When will the Public Lending Right Bill surface through this whirlpool of legislation?

Mr. Foot: I very much hope when the House returns after the Summer Recess. The probable day that I suggest we should return is Monday 11th October. I certainly hope that before the end of the Session that measure, which is supported by the Government and has already gone through another place, will have a good chance of going through the House of Commons.

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE

3.37 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about measures which the Government have decided to take to secure our social and economic objectives.
Our overrriding priority is to restore the prosperity of the British economy through the regeneration of our industry and to provide the essential conditions to bring down, and to keep down, the intolerable level of unemployment. To do this we must ensure that manufacturing industry has sufficient resources available to take advantage of the exceptional opportunities now open to us in the export field; we have got to get our rate of inflation down to the level of our competitors and hold it there; and we have got to do both in a way which will protect the poorest and weakest of our people and retain the social consensus on which the success of all our policies depends.
In my Budget Speech last April I said that I expected our gross domestic product, which fell during 1975, to grow by about 4 per cent. and manufacturing output to grow by about 8 per cent. in the year to mid-1977. The increase in demand would come largely from exports and stock-building: little from consumption.
In fact the recovery has proceeded faster than I then expected, led by a vigorous growth in exports. On present policies I would now expect GDP to increase over the next 18 months from the first half of 1976 at an annual rate of 5 per cent. and exports of goods and services by 11 per cent. This could imply a very rapid rate of increase in manufacturing production, perhaps as much as 9 per cent. We must, as usual, expect a lag before these developments affect the present unacceptable figures of unemployment; but on current prospects I would expect unemployment to start falling before the end of the year. I shall have more to say about this later. Money supply (M3) has grown well within the guidelines I set at the time of the Budget.
The balance of payments on current account, however, remains in substantial


deficit. The 12 per cent depreciation of sterling since March will inevitably worsen the balance of payments in the short term, and make it more necessary than ever for us to maintain the confidence of those from whom we may have to borrow to finance our external deficit. On the other hand, the increase in our exports and in import substitution deriving from our increased competitiveness will later bring a massive improvement. In fact, we now have a unique opportunity for export-led growth—something we have sought in vain ever since the Second World War.
There are two possible threats to our success. In the previous cycle an excessive rate of growth in manufacturing production led quickly to supply constraints and bottlenecks in many sectors of industry. We also suffered from an excessive growth of the money supply. We saw a price explosion and an unacceptable deficit on our balance of payments. We shall not let this happen again.
In tackling these problems the Government benefit greatly from the cooperation which has been established with both sides of industry. This has made possible an agreement on prices and incomes between the Government, the trade unions and industrial management, which in one year has halved the rate of price increases. It has also produced a dramatic improvement in industrial relations which has greatly reduced the amount of disruption in the flow of industrial supplies. The days lost through strikes so far this year have been less than half last year's figure, which was itself only a third of the figure for 1974 and one quarter of that of 1972. The same consensus has successfully launched the industrial strategy which is an essential element in this country's economic regeneration.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have said many times that the Government stand ready to take whatever action may be necessary to make room for the growth in exports and productive investment on which this country's future depends. It remains my considered judgment that there is no call for major action in the current financial year. We have already taken firm action to break into the tendency for public expenditure to exceed planned levels. In particular, our new techniques

of control, notably cash limits, will ensure that expenditure in 1976–77 is strictly contained within the limits which the Government have published. But there is no economic or financial case for further reduction in public expenditure or the PSBR this year. I now estimate the PSBR this year to be about £11½ billion, about £½ billion less than the Budget estimate.
It has been right for us, like other countries, to run a large fiscal deficit in the depths of the recession so as to keep unemployment lower than it would otherwise have been. It would, however, be wrong to do this through the period of recovery which is now beginning. Unless the deficit falls steadily over the next three years as expansion proceeds, the financing of the public sector will pre-empt private savings which productive industry is likely to require on a substantial scale to finance stockbuilding and investment; or it will lead to an excessive growth of the money supply, which would refuel inflation.
Given the economic prospect as we now see it, I intend that the PSBR for 1977–78 shall be reduced to £9 billion or less.
Next year the recovery of the economy is likely by itself to reduce the PSBR only by something like £1 billion to about £10½ billion. This alone will not be enough. Fiscal action is needed in addition to achieve the objective which the Government set themselves.
I believe that it would be wrong in present conditions to load on to taxation anything approaching the whole burden of adjustment. In particular, a major increase in the burden of personal taxation would have unacceptable consequences for take-home pay. It could wreck our counter-inflation policy in the coming year.
I must therefore look to public expenditure for a major contribution and I am announcing now, in advance of the usual White Paper, public expenditure reductions of £1 billion at 1976 Survey prices for 1977–78, which will be the crucial year for recovery.
Since the February White Paper—Cmnd. 6393—was published, the Government have approved a number of proposals which add to expenditure programmes in 1977–78. The main items are the various measures the Government have taken to relieve unemployment, the


uprating of social security benefits from next November, and the net cost to the Exchequer of the introduction of child benefits. These were announced as claims against the contingency reserve provided in the White Paper and have not therefore added to total planned expenditure.
In deciding where the reductions of £1 billion should fall the Government have avoided mechanical cuts across the board. We have deliberately decided to maintain the main social security benefits like pensions so as to provide the maximum support to those in need here at home. We have also decided to maintain, untouched, our aid programme to the Third World. I shall later be referring to further measures which the Government intend to take to assist employment among young people.
The main purpose of our measures is to allow manufacturing industry to take the maximum advantage of the opportunities now presented to it. Because of the priority which the Government are giving to the industrial strategy, we have been concerned to avoid damaging the trade, industry and employment programmes.
We intend to move towards putting emphasis on selective, as against general, assistance to industry. We plan therefore to increase significantly the resources available for selective assistance to industry through the NEB and the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, as well as from the Government direct, so as to support the work on the industrial strategy now under way in NEDC. Our experience shows that this is the most cost-effective way of helping to achieve the reversal of our post-war industrial decline.
As part of this policy of selective support for industry, the Government will also watch vigilantly the need for any extension of their existing selective import restraints to provide temporary protection to viable industries when faced with unfair foreign competition. We have already taken action and we are anxious to discuss with both sides of industry the need for further action of this kind.
In some areas we have already increased provision for public expenditure, especially for the Department of Employment's programme, including funds pro-

vided to the Manpower Services Commission for training. In addition, we are prepared to make provision, within the revised programme, for a possible Government contribution in 1977–78 to the collective funding of any scheme of apprentice training which may emerge from the public discussion of our recent consultative document on that subject We shall be announcing before the recess further measures to help with the serious problem of unemployment among young people.
This shift of emphasis towards selective assistance to industry will require savings in expenditure of three kinds. First, Regional Employment Premium is at present £3 for men and £1·50 for women: in future it will be at a single rate of £2 for both. Second, we shall introduce legislation to reduce the employer's rebate from the Redundancy Fund from 50 per cent. to 40 per cent. Third, savings will be obtained on regional development grants by imposing a delay of some three months in payment of approved claims. We also propose to concentrate these grants in future on manufacturing investment by withdrawing elegibility from the construction and mining industries, the location of which for the most part is not determined by any incentive.
Apart from further selective action still to be decided, the net effect of all these measures will be to reduce the trade, industry and employment programmes in 1977–78 by £105 million.
Net savings of £157 million will be made on the capital investment programmes of the nationalised industries other than British National Oil Corporation. These savings are spread between the industries and should not affect the main industrial objectives of any of them.
We believe the time has now come to review the treatment of the nationalised industry programmes generally in our public expenditure figures so as to bring our practice more closely into line with that of other countries. The Expenditure Committee will, of course, be consulted on this review. No general change will be made until it is completed. Meanwhile, we are treating BNOC as a special case.
There will be net savings of £87 million on roads and related expenditure.
Net savings of £25 million will be obtained on existing agricultural and forestry programmes, largely by deferring the payment of capital grants and ending the lime subsidy.
Our existing plans envisaged that food subsidies would be largely phased out by 1978–79. This process will be accelerated, to save £80 million in 1977–78. The effect of this acceleration on the Index of Retail Prices will be only about 0·1 per cent.
The Government have decided to save £5 million on overseas services other than aid in 1977–78.
The planned defence budget for 1977–78 will be cut by £100 million. This will be achieved by rephasing the works programme and some deferrals.
Approvals for new housebuilding by local authorities are running at a substantially higher level than allowed for in the estimates in the last Public Expenditure White Paper. It is therefore necessary to reintroduce control over this programme and to limit the rate of approvals so that over-spending is avoided. Reductions will not be imposed in areas where housing needs are greatest. In addition, net savings of £146 million will be achieved, principally by reductions in local authority mortgage lending. My right hon. Friend has consulted the building societies, which have expressed their willingness to help fill this gap in mortgage lending, and I understand that a Press statement will be made later today by my right hon. Friend and the Chairman of the Building Societies Association.
Net savings of £81 million will be obtained on existing programmes for other environmental services.
For 1976–77 we have agreed to postpone the 5p increase in the charge for school meals that was due this September, but if the charge were kept at 15p in 1977–78, that would add £43 million to net expenditure on school meals in that year. We propose, therefore, to limit this addition to £15 million by raising the charge by 10p in the autumn of 1977. We shall save £45 million on the rest of the education programme, mainly by curtailing capital expenditure on the universities and other educational building and reducing the budgets for science and the arts. The total net saving on this programme will, therefore, be £30 million.
We have given high priority to the poorer members of our society and particularly to old-age pensioners. We shall continue to honour our commitments to uprate the main social security benefits regularly and we shall maintain general social security expenditure in 1977–78. Furthermore, we propose to increase the rate of the new mobility allowance in November 1977. But we shall be introducing legislation to restrict the unemployment benefit entitlement of those with substantial occupational pensions; and non-contributory invalidity benefit for housewives will now be introduced in November 1977. Taking into account the increase in mobility allowance, these measures will save about £21 million net in 1977–78.
Reductions of £70 million will be made in 1977–78 in the health and personal social services programme as a whole but there will be no cuts in services for patients in the National Health Service. The cuts will consist of £20 million on capital expenditure on the National Health Service and on local authority personal social services; £20 million by way of extra receipts from increases in dental and ophthalmic charges; and £10 million from savings on overheads and measures to curb the drugs bill; and it is proposed to save a further £20 million in l977–78—£40 million in a full year—by legislation to recoup mainly from insurance companies the full cost to the National Health Service of treating road accident cases. The Government will hold immediate consultations with the insurance companies and other interests concerned.
A reduction of £10 million will be made mainly in expenditure on Government accommodation.
A reduction of £35 million will be made in Northern Ireland. Some £3 million of this is the result of the new equalised rate of regional employment premium. The remainder of the cuts will be spread widely over the different Northern Ireland programmes.
In those cases where the reductions I have announced fall on the spending of authorities other than central Government, the necessary consultations about the form of the savings will be initiated at once. Where parliamentary authority is required, the necessary Bills or Orders will be introduced in due course.
These savings do not include any reduction in local authority current expenditure below the provision in the public expenditure White Paper published in February—Cmnd. 6393. But it is essential that stringent economy should be exercised to avoid exceeding this provision. We shall be discussing this matter, and also the implications of the reduction in capital expenditure of the local authorities, with the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance and with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
I shall circulate in the Official Report figures showing the effect of these measures on the main public expenditure programmes. Together with the saving of £60 million on debt interest which results in 1977–78 from the measures I am announcing this afternoon, the total public expenditure saving will be £1,012 million. This will reduce the PSBR in 1977–78 by about £800 million.
I turn next to taxation. I shall, of course, have to make my usual Budget judgment in nine months' time, next spring, when the course of the economy in the following year can be predicted more surely. However, in addition to the public expenditure measures which I have just announced, further action in the tax field is needed to reduce the PSBR to £9 billion. A massive increase in income tax or indirect taxation would be disastrous for our counter-inflation policy, particularly since the effects would be felt immediately in the middle of the next pay round. The Government have therefore decided instead to make an addition of 2 percentage points to the employers' national insurance contribution. This will accrue to the Exchequer.
The Government will be introducing legislation early in the new Session, so that the addition can take effect from 6th April 1977. It will yield about £910 million in 1977–78 and about £1,030 million in a full year. Well under half of this will come from manufacturing industry. This sum will further reduce the PSBR in 1977–78 by about £700 million.
The addition, like the existing contributions, will be an allowable cost for

purposes of the Price Code and corporation tax. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection will be announcing today the Government's decisions on the Price Code to come into effect on 1st August. These will include a rate of 50 per cent. for investment relief instead of 35 per cent. proposed in the consultative document and an adjustment factor of 1·4 for depreciation instead of the earlier proposal of 1·3. These further changes should contribute to industrial expansion and in themselves make little difference to prices.
The total estimated effect of the public expenditure and tax measures I have announced is to increase the price level by about 1 per cent. by March 1978, nearly two years from now.
On current forecasts these measures will suffice to achieve the Government's objective of getting PSBR down to £9 billion in 1977–78. That £9 billion would be about 6 per cent. of GDP at current market prices, compared with about 9 per cent. which we now forecast for this year, and nearly 10 per cent. last year. It thus represents a reduction of one-third in the PSBR in the first full year of recovery. The General Government Financial Deficit, which excludes on-lending to public corporations and the private sector, is the concept used by some other countries and is often quoted in international comparisons. The measures I have announced will reduce the General Government Deficit from just under 6 per cent. of GDP this year to 3 per cent. of GDP next year—a reduction of nearly half.
The Government's plans for the reduction of the PSBR will of course make it easier to finance the borrowing requirement without excessive growth of the money supply. It will also mean less pressure on interest rates, to the benefit of industry, of mortgage holders and of Government and local authority borrowing.
In the current year 1976–77 money supply has so far been growing at an annual rate of about 10 per cent. Because borrowing needs and gilt sales inevitably vary from quarter to quarter we must expect rates higher than this for some periods, especially towards the end of the financial year. It is a mistake to attach too much significance to such


fluctuations. For the financial year as a whole money supply growth should amount to about 12 per cent. Such an outcome would be fully consistent with our objectives for reducing inflation. I repeat the assurances I have given that I do not intend to allow the growth of the money supply to fuel inflation either this year or next. If inflation and output move as now forecast I would expect the growth in money supply to be lower next year than this.
There remains a risk that, even after the reduction in the PSBR, the necessary restraint in the growth of the money supply might result in industry being denied essential finance. I intend to ensure that that does not happen. It is essential that any increase in bank lending should be directed to priority borrowing, in particular for exports, import-saving, and investment and working capital for productive industry. This means that both lending and commitments for the future to customers in all non-priority categories must now be strictly limited and we shall monitor carefully what happens in these categories. The Governor are issuing a notice to the banks emphasising the necessity of applying restraint in this extended form, in reinforcement of existing requirements.
As a result of the measures which I have announced this afternoon I now expect GDP to increase over the 18 months from the first half of 1976 at an annual rate of about 4½ per cent. and manufacturing production at a rate of about 8½ per cent. These are still better figures than I was expecting at the time of the Budget. Unemployment in early 1978 will still be lower than expected then, even though the measures may by then have reduced the fall in unemployment by about 60,000. With the help of a much better balance in the public sector's finances, we can look forward to the economy recovering over the next 18 months at a pace which is both vigorous and sustainable and which will not refuel inflation.
The measures I have announced this afternoon have one overriding purpose—to make certain that this recovery can be sustained until full employment is achieved. This means that sufficient resources must be made available for manufacturing industry to take full advantage of the export opportunities

which now present themselves. The modernisation and expansion of our manufacturing industry must remain our first priority. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister again emphasised the Government's commitment to it when he chaired the important meeting of NEDC earlier this month. I believe that these measures will enable both sides of industry to work closely together with the Government to achieve our common aim with full confidence that the remaining obstacles to our success are now removed.

Sir G. Howe: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a long and important statement which we shall need to study with care. I hope that he can confirm that we shall have an opportunity to debate it, and that he may be able to give us some details of the figures he has announced in a form comparable with the public expenditure White Paper, so that we may see exactly what the implications are for some years ahead.
We on this side of the House welcome the fact that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have taken a significant step in the right direction and begun to grapple with the real problems that have been affecting our economy for the past few years. Even so, there are some matters about which we shall need to know more. For example, we shall need to study the proposed cuts in defence expenditure. We shall also need to study very closely those proposals for cuts that are expressed in terms of rephasing, deferring and postponing, in order to ensure that true reductions are being made in spending programmes in the years ahead.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us a little more about the proposed increase in employers' national insurance contributions? Does he accept that it amounts to an increase in indirect taxation and will be one of the significant factors contributing to the price increase of 1 per cent. that he suggests?
The Chancellor has told the House that he expects these measures to reduce the fall in unemployment—which I understand to mean that they will increase unemployment—in early 1978 by about 60,000. How far does he expect the increase in employers' contributions to represent an increase in unemployment?
We regard the Chancellor's announcement today, important as it is, as simply


the first step along the long, hard and stony road that will have to be followed to restore the balance and health of our economy.

Mr. Healey: There will no doubt be consultation between the usual channels about a debate. I shall be publishing more information about the details of the cuts in written form in Hansard tomorrow. The detailed figure for the five years will be published in the normal public expenditure White Paper later in the year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Next week?"] Of course not, because the public expenditure review has by no means yet concluded its course, but if questions are asked in the debate—for example, about the impact of the reductions next year or the following years—they will be answered.
I turn to the question of the employers' contribution. It is open to employers who can afford to do so in their competitive situation to pass on this increase in wage costs in the form of prices. The possible increase of 1 per cent. in the price level by the spring of 1978 will be almost entirely due to that. As I pointed out, the increase in the phasing down of food subsidies will account for only a 0·1 per cent. increase in the RPI.
It is important to point out that from that point of view, the employers' contribution increase is very different from an increase in direct taxation. For example, an increase in the value added tax takes immediate effect and is felt fully by the domestic consumer. Any price increases resulting from the national insurance increase will also be felt by exports, which is not the case with VAT. With the present level of competitiveness, such a price increase can well be afforded by British industry. So far as the unemployment effect of the new surcharge on the employers' contribution is concerned it is likely to account for about 10,000 of the 60,000 unemployment effect which I mentioned in my statement.

Sir G. de Freitas: Can my right hon. Friend say how far the defence reductions in the future of £100 million will affect the percentage of our gross national produce devoted to our defence in the NATO area?

Mr. Healey: I am afraid that I cannot absolutely distinguish between the per-

centage of our defence in the NATO area and that in other parts of the world, but total British defence expenditure, which will run at 5·6 per cent. of gross domestic product next year, will fall to 5·5 per cent.

Mr. David Steel: Can the Chancellor be more forthcoming about the question of a debate? We have all known that this statement was coming and, therefore, we ought to have a definite announcement about debating this complex matter next week. Since the earlier part of his statement seemed a little complacent, would he accept that what he calls the unique opportunity for export-led growth is in part due to the unique devaluation of our currency under his Chancellorship?
Will he undertake in his talks with the local authorities that those local authorities which have kept within their budgets will not be penalised at the expense of those which have not? Will he accept that once we get beyond the current restrictions on pay and profits he will have to accompany his investment measures with real incentives for individual efforts? Will he explain his proposals for the delay in the payment of the regional investment grant as that appeared to run counter to his general policies, which are not, at present, characterised by speed in any case?
Lastly, will he explain whether he has extracted any promise from the building societies that they will alter some of their policies to replace the local authority mortgage lending to offer help to properties and individuals which hitherto they have not been prepared to help?

Mr. Healey: I understand that the Leader of the House has given an undertaking to consult about a debate and I do not think the House can expect more from me on that matter.
In respect of the penalisation of local authorities which have observed the guidelines, the House will recognise that the present structure of local authority finance prohibits discrimination by the Government between one authority and another. That is, no doubt, something that the House as a whole will wish to consider in the context of the Layfield Report but it raises the most far-reaching problems of the whole nature, indeed meaning, of the phrase "local government". I do not think that anybody


would say that there is a simple answer to this problem which would not require absolutely major changes in the way in which this country has so far dealt with local authority finance.
On the question of deferral of regional development grant, I know that there is some delay in making those payments but I believe that business has not found substantial difficulty in coping with this delay. There will now be a further delay of three months over what is common, for administrative reasons, at the present time.
On the question of the building societies, I pointed out in my statement that the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Chairman of the Building Societies Association will be making a joint statement on this matter this afternoon.

Mr. Powell: After the experience of the last few weeks, does the right hon. Gentleman now understand the force of the argument that the publication of figures on public expenditure years ahead is destructive of Treasury control and of a rational planning for public expenditure? It results in a parade, in the months of July, of chips from the Treasury workshop such as we have had this afternoon, many of which are merely effects produced by mirrors. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the entire policy of the publication of projections on public spending years ahead which are merely misleading and inhibiting the Government's action?

Mr. Healey: I would regard the right hon. Gentleman as possibly the champion illusionist in the House. When he talks about mirrors he knows what he is talking about. In respect of supplementary projections on public expenditure, I would agree with him, and that is why we are making these changes after many years in which Governments of both parties did not think fit to make these changes. It is better to concentrate and focus attention on the year immediately ahead than on a year three or four years ahead, which has been the practice of successive Governments. That is one reason why I am making this firm statement now about next year's programme, because I think that it is more important to get that right than to plan for three, four or five years

ahead. I think that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman would also agree with that.
I must confess that in my last post as Secretary of State for Defence I learned—anybody concerned with defence matters in Government will recognise it—that it is vital, when planning the next year's expenditure policy, to consider the implications of that expenditure for expenditure in future years. In short, I think that it is more important to focus on the immediate future than has hitherto been recognised, but the value of planning five years ahead remains indisputable.

Mr. Atkinson: Would the Chancellor agree that the statement made for the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) means that the Conservative Party are now demanding unemployment to the tune of some 2 million people? Would the Chancellor also accept that his statement means that in the future some 60,000–70,000 men and women will be reduced from the total non-manufacturing public sector work force by next year? If that is the case, he may have won the confidence of international creditors but he has certainly lost the confidence of the Labour movement.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Healey: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question, but, obviously, not with the second part. There is no doubt that if the Opposition went forward with the immediate cuts in public expenditure of £3 billion, which they are now reported to favour, that would have an absolutely catastrophic effect on employment on the scale which my hon. Friend has mentioned.
I regret as much as he does the fact that it has been necessary to take measures which will affect employment by the end of next year but what I hope he will come to recognise is that failure to take this measure would have consequences for sterling and the balance of payments and would have led to a paralysis of our economy which would have produced a much higher level of unemployment than this. It would have completely excluded the chances of a steady and sustained return to full employment which I know that my hon. Friend and I agree ought to be regarded


as the first objective of a Labour Government.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will be deeply resented in Scotland where people will contrast its bankruptcy with their knowledge of the vast resources accruing from the Scottish oilfields? Is he aware that the Scottish TUC declared its total opposition to cuts and said they would involve the loss of 10,000 jobs? Can the Chancellor specify what he means by
housing for areas in greatest need"?

Mr. Healey: Views differ in various parts of the United Kingdom, such as England, Scotland or the Shetlands, as to the precise importance and ownership of North Sea oil. I do not believe that it would be possible for anybody to make an estimate of the effects on employment of the measures the Government have taken without actually hearing what they were. I have given the best estimate that I can this afternoon.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Is the Chancellor aware of the impact of the proposed cuts on housing, both in the inner city areas in England and in areas such as Wales which already has one house in seven unfit? Is he aware also of the impact of the reduction in local authority mortgage-lending on areas which have a high level of owner-occupation? Will he confirm that his announcement today will not prejudice the results of the current housing finance review which should bring reductions in tax relief at the so-called top of the housing market and should direct resources to the bottom end, which is what we need?

Mr. Healey: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's feeling about the housing situation in Wales and I take it that he will be as proud as I am of the fact that under this Government housebuilding in Wales has doubled. I think that he will recognise also that this Government have agreed to a substantial increase in housing expenditure in Wales to be taken from the Contingency Fund this year.
In answer to the hon. Member and to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), of course we recognise that certain parts of the country have exceptionally difficult housing problems—

that goes for the Strathclyde area of Scotland for example—and it is such areas of which I was thinking when I talked about the areas of greatest need. As for local authority mortgage-lending, as I said there will be a common statement made by my right hon. Friend and the building societies on this matter this afternoon. But the building societies have indicated their willingness to attempt to fill any gap which is left by the reduction in local authority mortgage lending.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the further £20 million cut in the capital programmes of the health and personal social services will mean practically a total mortorium on all new hospital building, including many long overdue developments of high priority, and will make it impossible for local authorities to provide residential accommodation for the growing numbers of the elderly and children in care? Does he consider that that is the way to protect the needy and those who need help most?

Mr. Healey: I think that my right hon. Friend, who has held responsibility in this field, knows as well as anyone that the needs of the people of this country are almost inexhaustible in health, housing and many other fields. It is necessary for any Government and for any head of any Department to determine priorities among those needs in the light of the economic situation at any particular time. I hope that she will agree with me that in this situation it is far better that savings should be sought from capital programmes than by a reduction in service to patients in the National Health Service. I know that this is a difficult question always, determining priorities, but I do not believe that any responsible Government or Minister can avoid it.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Chancellor aware that in his 1975 Budget he announced public expenditure cuts of precisely the same magnitude for 1976–77 and in the event they are not happening at all? Can he give the House an assurance that on this occasion the cuts will stick, that there will be no slippage? Can he further tell the House what is the new proposed level for public expenditure in 1977–78 in White Paper terms?

Mr. Healey: On the first question, yes, there was some slippage between last year and this year and I announced


that in the last public expenditure White Paper—and so there was in every year since the war, under Governments of one sort or another. But I can assure the House that this will be the first year since the war that any British Government have succeeded in keeping expenditure within the limits set. The hon. Member is as well aware as I am of the new techniques and institutions and machinery which have been adopted to secure that result. I hope that some time he will have the grace to congratulate the Government at least on getting public expenditure under control in a way in which Governments of his own party successively failed to do. As for the level of public expenditure, I know that it is a difficult piece of arithmetic to work out, but it is exactly £1,020 million less than the figures in the last White Paper.

Mr. Anderson: My right hon. Friend shoulders an awful burden, and most of us will believe that he has acted responsibly, selectively and humanely in these cuts. Can he say on past experience how he expects the building societies to honour their undertakings, when clearly in the past they have not filled the gap left from local authority mortgages? Also, how does he expect us to justify these cuts to our supporters when, apart from overseas aid, which all of us accept, there is yet one remaining sacred cow—devolution, which is costly and has nothing whatever to do with national efficiency?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Healey: I thank my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. I am afraid that it is clear from the reaction to his closing remarks that on both sides of the House there are disagreements whether it is possible to be selective and humane by including or excluding expenditure on devolution. However, I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that in a difficult situation this Government have attempted to maintain the priorities which the broad mass of the movement regard as the most important.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that we give a modified welcome to what might be called Treasury tinkering? May I ask three questions? First, on the health

service and other services to individuals, has he made any attempt to cut the administrative costs as opposed to the capital costs? There are now, I think, twice as many clerks and administrators per occupied bed as there were 10 years ago. Secondly, what effects will his cuts have on increasing the proportion of effort from the present 40 per cent. which goes into producing marketable goods and services, whether in the public or in the private sector? At the moment, it is 40 per cent. only of our total effort. Thirdly, when he refers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—to manufacturing industry, would he give an assurance that he is not discriminating against the type of service industry which earns abroad about $9,000 million a year?

Mr. Healey: I sometimes find it a little odd that a person who was a member of the last Administration should criticise this Government for administrative waste in the National Health Service, which arises from the reorganisation carried out by his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). I find that a little difficult to take. There is no question that there, as in the field of local authority administration, we face serious problems imposed on us by unwise administrative decisions of the previous Administration. But we shall do our best to cope with them.
Of course the reductions which I have announced will mean a fall in the percentage of GDP which is taken by public expenditure and an increase in the percentage taken by the sector producing marketable goods and services. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] Roughly 1 per cent. Of course, the last White Paper gave details of the profile as it would move over the next five years on the policies in that White Paper.
On the last point which the right hon. Gentleman was reading out, perhaps the House might remind me what it was. Oh, yes—it was some obscure remark directed to some area which was producing savings on the balance of payments. Of course any area of the economy which is contributing to a reduction of our balance of payments deficit is welcome, but the future of this country depends on improving and extending the performance of our manufacturing industry. It is on that above everything that our economic performance depends.

Mrs. Hart: May one express appreciation of the wisdom of my right hon. Friend's Cabinet colleagues in sustaining the aid programme and rejecting cuts there? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, apart from the detail of the cuts which he has announced, there is a growing and considerably expanding body of economic opinion in this country which genuinely does not accept the Treasury strategy upon which his proposals are based? Will he give an undertaking that he will thoroughly explore and discuss within Parliament the merits and demerits of his strategy—that is to say, the Treasury strategy—against the alternative strategy which others are putting forward?

Mr. Healey: First let me assure my right hon. Friend that I will take pleasure in passing on her congratulations to my Cabinet colleagues while keeping to myself that small quantum which I deserve.
On the second question, of course I recognise that there are people who hold different views about the strategy that the Government should be following. So far as those views include a case for large-scale import controls, they are often supported by arguments drawn by an important and reputable body of Cambridge economists. But I must remind my right hon. Friend that one Cambridge economist who favoured the strategy she favours announced in a study last March that it would require an increase in taxation next year of £3 billion. I feel that it is necessary for those who take the view that we can solve our problems by widespread import controls to face and to publish the consequences as against restraint in public expenditure and personal living standards.

Mr. Tugendhat: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that while I can echo my hon. Friend's qualified welcome for his statement, I believe that had he acted earlier, sterling would not have fallen so far and his anti-inflation policy therefore would not have run into such difficulties? The right hon. Gentleman asks for congratulations, and I congratulate him on the extent to which he has moved towards the policies which we advocate, and away from the nonsense of some hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, but, finally, is he aware that we

are now paying the price for the profligacy of the first year of this Government in power after an election victory which he contrived?

Mr. Healey: I am so rarely congratulated that I hardly like to turn any congratulations away whatever their sour source, but I am slightly embarrassed this afternoon by some of the praise coming from the Benches opposite, particularly when it is allied with most ridiculous remarks about what should or should not have been done in the past.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take two more questions from each side.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has a right to be embarrassed by the support coming from the Opposition in this matter? Is he also aware that whilst there are a number of sweeteners—and obviously my right hon. Friend has listened to some of the things that have been said to him by hon. Members on this side and by the Trades Union Congress—there is no sweetener for the construction industry which now has over 200,000 unemployed, and with this package will have a lot more unemployed? Is he aware that this proposal will be judged on the basis of how it affects unemployment and that therefore my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) was absolutely right to say that certainly not all parts of the Labour movement will be enamoured of this package?

Mr. Healey: I know that not all parts of the Labour movement will be enamoured of these proposals. I doubt whether any part is. I am not enamoured of them myself. I regard them as painful but necessary action taken to protect the steady movement of this country back to full employment. But the fact that it is necessary does not make it any less painful.
I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the response which the Government have made as a result of the consultations which have been carried out with all sections of the Labour movement in the last few weeks. I hope that at least he would agree that there has never been a fiscal package of this nature which has been preceded by so much careful consultation with so many people


and which has borne such fruit in the result.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that his claim that the public sector borrowing requirement, or financial deficit, is substantialy due to the recession may be treated with scepticism in view of the Bank of England's figures showing that our deficit could be double that of other countries? If he wishes to substantiate the claim that our deficit is no bigger than that of other countries, will he tell us what it is on a full-employment basis?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman knows better than most hon. Members, and certainly better than myself, how many ways there are of defining a full-employment deficit. This is one of the most hotly disputed technical matters between economists. But on the main thrust of his question—and I am glad that he asked it—it has been said from the Front Bench opposite that the recession in this country has not been as deep as in many other countries. The reason is the measures taken by this Government last year. But on the question of the size of the fiscal deficit, the General Government Financial Deficit, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, is the only classification where comparison is easy, and the British deficit is 5·8 per cent. against 7 per cent. this year in the Federal Republic of Germany, against slightly less in the United States of America and against 4 per cent. in France. In fact, our deficit during the recession has been very much in line with that of other industrial countries.

Mr. Dalyell: The Chancellor has talked in terms of priorities. Which is the priority—the cutting of local authority personal services of expensive Assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff?

Mr. Healey: I must confess that over many years I am never surprised by my hon. Friend's supplementary questions. I know that he disagrees with many hon. Members on the importance of devolution but lie knows that I do not share his view.

Mr. Crouch: May I also offer the Chancellor my welcome to his step in this direction? May I also ask him whether he will take this opportunity of emphasising that the cuts he has read out are for real and whether he can assure

the House, and all who are listening outside this House, at home and abroad, that the Treasury has sufficient control to ensure that the cuts he has proposed are implemented down the line in all Departments? It simply will not do to pull the wool over anyone's eyes these days.

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman should recognise from the many actions taken by this Government in recent months and, particularly, in relation to local authority plans for current expenditure that a more sustained and effective effort is being made by this Government than by any post-war predecessor to ensure that their public expenditure limits are not exceeded by anyone concerned.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this now.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that sex discrimination has been total on this side of the House? You have not called a single woman on this side to speak on these cuts.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I never call any hon. Member on the basis of sex.

Mr. Frank Allaun: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Chancellor has just told the House that there is to be a statement on mortgages in relation to replacing the very serious cut of £146 million in local authority mortgages which cover the poorer section of the population. Is this announcement to be made in the House so that we can question it, or is it to be made outside where we cannot question it?

Mr. Speaker: That is pursuing questions to the Chancellor after I had brought them to a close.

Mr. Skinner: It is very convenient.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should show a little more courtesy to the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Skinner: It has rankled you, has it?

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat what he has said?

Mr. Skinner: I said, "It has rankled you, has it?"

Mr. Arthur Lewis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you advise me, having been outside them for just 32 years, how to get in on one of these regular six-monthly Exchequer announcements, which are then corrected and altered six months later, when it is admitted that mistakes have been made and that people have got their sums wrong and it is stated that mistakes made six months earlier must be put right? Can you advise me how one can occasionally—in my case just once—get called to put such a question to the Chancellor?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was the most effective point of order I have heard for a long time, because I shall remember it.

Mr. Tapsell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel that it was not compatible with the maintenance of the dignity of the Chair that the last two observations by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should be allowed to pass unreproved.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that the best way to deal with the hon. Gentleman was

Following are the figures:

Table A below indicates the effect on the main public expenditure programmes of the measures announced today and other changes since publication of Cmnd. 6393, including the allocation of expenditure to programmes from the contingency reserve. Fuller details of the revised programmes, including any further policy or estimating changes made subsequently, will be included in the public expenditure White Paper to be published later in the year.

TABLE A


1977–78; PUBLIC EXPENDITURE PROGRAMMES


£. at 1976 Survey price



Cmnd. 6393 revalued
Changes before Chancellor's statement
Total (1) plus (2)
Changes announced on 22nd July 1976
Total (3) plus (4)



(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)


1. Defence
5,644
—
5,644
-100
5,544


2. Overseas aid and other overseas services
1,126
+149*
1,275
-5
1,270


3. Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry
967
-116*
851
-105
746


4. Trade, industry and employment
2,469
+132
2,601
-105
2,496


5. Nationalised industries capital expenditure†
3,310
—
3,310
-157
3,153


6. Roads and transport
2,500
-13
2,487
-87
2,400


7. Housing
4,435
—
4,435
-146
4,289


8. Other environmental services
2,481
-14
2,467
-81
2,386


9. Law, order and protective services
1,822
+11
1,833
—
1,833


10. Education and libraries, science and arts
7,386
-24
7,362
-30
7,332


11. Health and personal social services
6,611
-3
6,608
-70
6,538

to give him the consideration he deserved—which was silence.

Mr. Arthur Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Without wishing to be discourteous to the Chair, and wishing at all times to maintain the dignity of the Chair, may I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that we have heard an extremely important statement, and, furthermore, that we shall all be here very late tonight. I appreciate your difficulties, but may I put it to you that not only were there still many Members on their feet when you felt it appropriate to close the discussion, but there was one fundamental matter that had not emerged. I urge you to give an opportunity to the Chancellor to make clear how much of the cuts he announced will be achieved by executive action and how much will be within the authority of this House to determine.

Mr. Speaker: Quite clearly, there were many hon. Members on both sides of the House who wished to pursue the matter, but I understand that, following a request, there will be a discussion whether there should be a debate. Therefore, we cannot debate the matter now. No doubt many matters will emerge in the debate.

£m. at 1976 Survey prices




Cmnd. 6393 revalued
Changes before Chancellor's statement
Total (1) plus (2)
Changes announced on 22nd July 1976
Total (3) plus (4)




(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)


12. Social Security
…
11,359
+200
11,559
-21
11,538


13. Other public services
…
867
-32
835
—
835


14. Common services
…
813
-6
807
-10
797


15. Northern Ireland
…
1,599
-2
1,597
-35
1,562


Total programmed expenditure
…
53,389
+282
53,671
-952
52,719


Civil Service staff costs
…
-62






Total programmes
…
53,327

53,671

52,719


Contingency reserve
…
1,050

706

706




54,377

54,377

53,425


* See Note (2)(b) below.


† Excluding BNOC.

NOTES TO TABLE A:


Column (1) of the above table gives the main programme totals in the February 1976 White Paper (Cmnd. 6393), revalued to 1976 Survey prices.


Column(2) indicates the changes due to—


(a) announced policy changes up to 21st July 1976 (details of these changes are given in Table B);


(b) some estimating changes on certain programmes, already identified during the course of the public expenditure Survey, including a revised estimate of EEC contributions in Programme 2, which is partly offset by a revised estimate of the cost of agricultural support in Programme 3;


(c) reductions in civil service staff costs (paragraph 32 of Cmnd. 6393).


Column (3) gives the sum of columns (1) and (2).


Column (4) indicates the net effect of the measures announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 22nd July 1976.


Column (5) gives the sum of columns (3) and (4).

TABLE B


ANNOUNCED CHANGES UP TO 21ST JULY 1976


Subject
Programmes affected
£ million at 1976 Survey Prices
Nature of Announcement


Employment measures
4,15
56
By Chancellor of the Exchequer (OR 12th February, Cols. 634–638)


Agricultural price review
3
12
By Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (OR 8th March, Col. 28)


Extension of the Coal Industry Act 1973
4
16
By Under-Secretary of State for Energy (OR 25th March, Cols. 717–722)


Assistance to the film industry
4
4
By Prime Minister (OR 29th March. Written Answers, Cols. 333–334)


Temporary employment subsidy, community industry and industrial schemes
4,15
43
In Budget statement on 6th April


Social security benefits
10, 12, 15
125
By Secretary of State for Social Services (OR 7th April, Cols. 425–440)


Accommodation for Scottish and Welsh Assemblies
13
3
By Lord President of the Council (OR 14th April, Col. 1382)


Pay policy: Employment measures
4
10
By Chancellor of the Exchequer (OR 5th May, Col. 1304)


Child benefit scheme
12,15
84*
By Secretary of State for Social Services (OR 25th May, Col. 284)


Additional capital for the Radio-chemical Centre Ltd. (TRC)
4
3
Secretary of State for Energy (OR 2nd July, Written Answers, Cols. 318–319)


Total

356



* Net Exchequer cost.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That Commission Document No. R/923/76 relating to Stamp Duty on Securities be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Ordered,

That the Order of 20th July applying to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill and the Education Bill be varied as follows:
If a statement is made in the House by a Minister of the Crown on the day on which the Rent (Agriculture) Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day—

(a) a period of time equal to the duration of the staetment shall be added to the period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock in accordance with the Order of 20th July, and
(b) the time for the bringing to a conclusion of Consideration of the Bill and of Third Reading shall each be postponed for the like period.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

Orders of the Day — RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL [ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House that time spent in dealing with the Chancellor's statement will be added to the time allotted for the Rent (Agriculture) Bill.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I note from the provisional list of amendments that Amendment No. 161 has not been selected. Will you advise me how we may discuss the possible extension of the Bill to cover abolition of the unjust system of tied cottages in Scotland, for otherwise many of our constituents who are forced to live like medieval serfs will have to continue in this situation?

Mr. Speaker: I can help the hon. Gentleman. I understand that the Bill does not apply to Scotland. In any case, the selection of amendments has already been made.

Ordered,
That the Rent (Agriculture) Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely: new Clauses. Amendments relating to Clause 1, Schedule 2, Clauses 2 to 8, Schedule 3, Clauses 9 to 11, Schedule 4, Clauses 10 to 31, Schedule 5, Clauses 32 to 34, Schedule 6, Clauses 35 and 36, Schedule 1, Clauses 37 to 42, Schedules 7 and 8, and new Schedules.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

New Clause 1

PHASING OF RENT INCREASES

'(1) The rent of a dwelling-house which is subject to a statutory tenancy qualifies for phasing under this section if—

(a) a rent is registered for that dwelling-house in the part of the register in which rents may be registered for dwelling-houses which are subject to statutory tenancies, and
(b) that rent is not the first rent to be registered for that dwelling-house in that part of that register during the subsistence of the statutory tenancy or, in the case of a statutory tenancy by succession, during the subsistence of any statutory tenancy which immediately preceded it.

(2) Where the rent of a dwelling-house qualifies for phasing under this section, and a provision of Schedule (Phasing of rent increases) to this Act imposes a rent limit for any period of the statutory tenancy beginning during the period of delay imposed by that Schedule, sections 12(3) and (3A), 13(5A) and 15(2) of this Act shall have effect, in relation to that period of the statutory tenancy, as if for the references to the registered rent there were substituted references to the said rent limit.

(3) A notice of increase under section 15 of this Act which purports to increase a rent which qualifies for phasing under this section further than permitted by Schedule (Phasing of rent increases) shall have effect to increase it to the extent permitted by that Schedule and no further.

(4) Nothing in this section or in Schedule (Phasing of rent increases) to this Act shall prevent or limit any increase in rent by virtue of section 47(4) of the Rent Act 1968 (variable rents)'.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the new clause, the new schedule and the consequential amendments is to ensure that landlords and tenants of statutory tenancies created by the Bill are treated comparably as far as rent increases are concerned with landlords and tenants under tenancies to which the Rent Act 1968 applies. The proposed provisions contain a phasing regime akin to that already on the statute book. But they contain slight adaptations to fit in with the particular way in which Bill tenancies arise, and a certain amount of streamlining.
The clause and the schedule resemble closely Section 7 and Schedule 2 respectively of the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975. Their aim is that increases in rent up to a newly registered level should be phased in up to three annual stages. The landlord, however, should be able to recover the cost of services which he provides and whose charges he cannot himself control. This is the regime which applies to the vast majority of Rent Act tenancies where a rent is registered. So it is consistent with our approach to this Bill as a whole that we should adopt it, subject of course to any modifications needed to meet the particular circumstances of the Bill.
It may be helpful if I outline the two modifications which we are suggesting.

First, the Bill should be on all fours with the existing regime in so far as initial rent payable is concerned. There is no phasing, nor could there be any, towards the initial rent which a landlord is entitled to recover under a contractual tenancy protected by the 1968 Act. Phasing can only arise once a rent payable is to be replaced by a higher rent. But under the Bill, a statutory tenancy is unlikely to be preceded by a tenancy at all and certainly not by a tenancy in identical terms. Hence the initial rent relating to a Bill tenancy which a landlord is entitled to recover is the first rent registered during the currency of that tenancy. It would be a departure from the existing rules of phasing if the tenant were not liable to meet this first obligation in full. Hence, we have provided for phasing to take place only at the second and subsequent registrations of a rent under a tenancy created by the Bill.
Secondly, tenants protected under the 1968 Act may find that their rent increases are subject to phasing not under the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975 but under the Housing Finance Act 1972. This happens in the minority of occasions where a newly registered rent has to take account of improvements which attract grant aid from the local authority. Application of a regime akin to that of the 1975 Act already entails writing into the Bill provisions of some complexity. The additional insertion of undoubted intricacies so as to cater for what is likely to be a far from significant minority of cases hardly seems justified in the Bill's context. So we have reached the conclusion that a streamlined regime is more likely to be workable and comprehensible—which is important to both farmers and farm workers alike. The clause and schedule are thus exclusively modelled on those introduced by the 1975 Act.
Amendments 87 and 158, which we are also discussing, are of lesser importance. Amendment No. 87—to Clause 14—covers what is likely to prove a very rare case: a dwelling-house subject to a statutory tenancy created by the Bill but with a rent registered at some time in the past, no doubt where a previous Rent Act tenant was somebody other than a farm worker. In such cases it would hardly be justifiable if the chance existence of a registration were to prevent a landlord


from applying for a rent to be registered at the outset of a statutory tenancy created by the Bill. Amendment No. 87 so provides.
Amendment No. 158—to Schedule 7—covers another rare case—that of the tenant protected by the Bill who gives up his tenancy in exchange for a Rent Act protected tenancy of the same dwelling-house. The amendment provides that any rent increase in such unlikely circumstances is to be phased in accordance with the 1975 Act.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: The clause indicates the great difficulties under which we are labouring this afternoon. We have only a few hours left to discuss more than 100 Government amendments, apart from our own. Sadly, this afternoon we have already lost a good deal of time because of the important statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Mr. Speaker made it quite clear that any time lost because of the statement would be added at the end.

Mr. Awdry: That is true, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think it must be said that we are still very short of time. It is a scandalous state of affairs that this complicated Bill, which affects the lives and businesses of so many people, is not to be fully discussed. I feel bitter about this because we had a good set of discussions in Committee which were constructive, and we tried to make the Bill a better one.
The clause is complicated. Why was it not in the original Bill? That is a fair question because of the complication involved in these provisions. Was it an oversight by the Department, or have the Government had second thoughts about it? The House has not yet had an opportunity of discussing the amount of rent that will be payable when a statutory tenancy comes into effect. The amount of the provisional rent payable during the transitional period will be far too low. The provisional rents, which will often be less than £2 a week, are unfair to farmers, and we raised this matter in Committee.
Will the Minister confirm that the clause will not affect the fixing of rents

by a rent officer in the first instance, so that the landlord will know that he will receive a fair return? I shall not ask the Minister to tell the House the meaning of the schedule in depth and detail. That would be unfair, since part of the new schedule reads:
The permitted increase for a rental period which begins during the first year of the period of delay is an increase to the greater of the following amounts namely—

(a) PRL+SE+⅓ [RR-(PRL+SE)]:
(b) PRL+SE+SS".
I wonder what my farm workers will think of that. It is gobbledygood. Are the provisions in the new schedule, which we have not had time to discuss, similar to those in the schedule in the 1975 legislation? I do not want to delay proceedings, but the Minister must tell us why these complicated provisions were left out of the original Bill and he must confirm that they will not affect the fixing of the rent in the first instance.

Mr. Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman has been fair. It is a complicated matter, but it was considered necessary in order to make the situation clear to everyone. There is nothing new in the proposals. They make it clear to landlord and tenant that the provisions for the phasing of rent increases are akin to those that already apply to landlords and tenants under the Rent Acts. That is the reason for the new clause. I confirm that the provisions apply to subsequent rent increases.

Mr. Peter Mills: The new clause shows a selective approach to this important matter. I do not altogether accept what the Minister said. He said that the matter was extremely complicated. More time should have been given to examining the provisions and to consulting our constituents about their effects. Has the Minister consulted the National Farmers Union about the clause?

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I was not a member of the Committee, but the Government have shown a lack of consideration to hon. Members by rubber-stamping legislation without giving us the opportunity of consulting any of the interested organisations such as the NFU and the National Association of Agricultural Workers. The NFU brief does not mention the clause,


although I am sure that it would have done if the NFU had been aware of it.
We have been treated by the Government in this way before in agricultural legislation. For example, when we were discussing an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill a clause was introduced which tooks us weeks to examine and which had never before been mentioned. The same is happening now.
The provisions in the clause could create conflict between landlord and tenant and farmer and farm worker. I cannot believe that a schedule like this will add to the harmony In the countryside which we all want to maintain and which the Government appear to be endeavouring to destroy.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I wish to express the same sentiments as other hon. Members. Have the Government discussed the provisions with Welsh agricultural organisations, such as the Farmers Union of Wales?

Mr. Armstrong: I find it difficult to understand why hon. Members should feel that in some way the agricultural worker and the industry itself are so isolated from the rest of the community. There is nothing new in the proposals and no new principles are being introduced. The provisions simply establish the proper relationship between landlord and tenant in the agricultural industry in a way which is taken for granted in other rent legislation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is no good shouting "Rubbish". The clause deals with the phasing of rent increases to bring that practice into line with provisions in Rent Act legislation.
I certainly did not consult the NFU or the NAAW about this matter and nor did discuss it with the Welsh farmers, because the clause is a genuine attempt by the Government to explain the relationship with other Rent Act legislation. We are not bringing in new proposals.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

AUTOMATIC PLANNING PERMISSION

'(1) Where by virtue of the operation of this Act—

(a) a landlord is unable to obtain possession of a dwelling-house, and
(b) an agricultural dwelling-house advisory committee has confirmed that suitable alternative accommodation should be provided for the occupant thereof, and
(c) the housing authority is unable or unwilling to comply with an application made to them under section 28,
then the landlord shall be deemed to have planning permission for the erection and maintenance on his land of a caravan or mobile home for the purpose of housing any agricultural worker required by him in the interests of agricultural efficiency until such time as the housing authority are able to discharge their duty under section 29 hereof.

(2) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any caravan or mobile home erected pursuant to this section'.

(3) The First Schedule to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 shall be amended to include:—
8(A) A site licence shall not be required for the use of land as a caravan site by virtue of section ( ) of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976"'.—[Mr. Rossi.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The object of the clause is to seek to meet and to deal with the dilemma with which the Committee was confronted time after time when considering the Bill. Because of the way in which the Bill will operate, the following situation will frequently arise. A farmer will find that a farm worker has left his employ but he will not be able to get back the accommodation in which the farm worker is living because the farm worker will be protected and will subsequently become a statutory tenant subject to the protection of the Rent Acts. The farmer may find that he desperately requires the accommodation because the farm worker was doing a job which was essential to the efficient management of the farm. For example, he may have been looking after livestock, which involves someone being on the spot to look after the animals.
5.0 p.m.
The Bill therefore provides that in those circumstances the farmer will be able to


go to an agricultural housing advisory committee and obtain a certificate, as it were, that the accommodation is essential to the proper running of the farm. Where the advice of that committee is obtained in the terms I have mentioned, an application can be made to the local authority, which will then be required to use its best endeavours to find alternative accommodation for the farm worker who has left the farmer's employ, so that the farmer can engage somebody else and house him on the farm.
The Government have been in great difficulty about the degree of obligation that they can impose upon the local authority—whether the obligation shall be absolute and, even if it were, whether the local authority would have the accommodation available or, indeed, the resources to make it available. Therefore, the Bill leaves the local authority simply in the position of doing its best to rehouse, and no more.

Mr. Peter Mills: That is not enough.

Mr. Rossi: Certainly it is not enough for the farmer who is placed in that impossible position, but as regard the local authority, with its reduced resources and no accommodation, it is proposed to get round the dilemma, which we have been presented with throughout the Bill, by means of New Clause 3.
The new clause is a genuine attempt to try to meet the situation where the farmer desperately needs alternative accommodation to be provided but where the local authority, with the best will in the world, is unable to provide it. We propose simply that where the farmer is unable to obtain possession of his farm cottage because of the provisions of the Bill, where the agricultural advisory committee has confirmed that suitable alternative accommodation should be provided because of the needs of agricultural efficiency, and where the local authority is either unable or unwilling to fulfil the duties imposed upon it by the Bill to provide that alternative accommodation, in these circumstances, and only in those circumstances, the farmer shall be deemed to have planning permission so as to be able himself to provide alternative accommodation by the erection of a mobile home or some other kind of temporary living accommodation, such as a caravan.
It will not be necesssary for the farmer in those circumstances to submit an application to the planning authority, with all the unfortunate delays which that entails and always with the possibility of refusal. Moreover, we say that the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 should not apply either, so that a site licence would not be required. Short of a provision of this kind, it is difficult to see how one can resolve the dilemma that the Government are introducing in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will try to give some help to the farming community in the way we propose.

Mr. Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend consider the case of the farm worker who wants to take the job of the man who has left? This situation can entail great hardship. There are good men throughout the country who are quite prepared to move from tied cottage to tied cottage. In the circumstances imposed by the Bill, such men may have to travel 10 or 15 miles every day to the new job. I hope that my hon. Friend will stress this hardship.

Mr. Rossi: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. That point emphasises and underlines our case for the new clause.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to the new clause—indeed, I am sure he has already done so. As drafted it is somewhat unsatisfactory, because I do not see that it is appropriate for a farm worker to go into a caravan with no security of tenure. Subject to that, however, I can see that there may be problems where someone takes up a new job in a situation where the only cottage remains occupied. That could create hardship to the farmer and restrict the opportunity to someone else to take on the job which the occupant of the cottage had been carrying out.
This problem will frequently arise where a farm worker has died, has been injured or become ill or has retired and where the local authority is not immediately able to provide accommodation for the outgoing family. Mobile homes are not a satisfactory long-term solution but they can provide a satisfactory short-term solution.
Planning consent is a major difficulty. Whether it is desirable that there should be automatic planning consent, or a provision whereby the Minister can make it plain to the local authorities that they are expected to grant planning consent in some circumstances, is not material. The new clause is not satisfactorily drafted, but some provision on these lines could be helpful and would not detract from the principle of the Bill.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: New Clause 3 is invaluable in its main purpose. Even if it is not carried into law, it will be essential in any event for the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture immediately the Bill becomes law to send out a circular directing the attention of all local authorities to the fact that this is one way in which accommodation which is immediately necessary can become available for agricultural workers.
Certain circumstances of urgency are bound to arise. If accommodation by virtue of a tied cottage is not readily available, it is essential to have immediate alternative accommodation. That can only be done by the provision of a mobile home or caravan—there is no other way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) has pointed out, a worker who wants to take on the job available might live many miles away and will have to travel daily unless he can have the accommodation which normally goes with the job.
In Committee we pressed time and again for the imposition on local authorities of an absolute duty to provide the necessary accommodation in urgent cases. I believe that Ministers and Labour hon. Members had a great deal of sympathy with that argument, but they were virtually overruled by the Association of District Councils. In effect, the local authorities said to the Government "This is no concern of yours; mind your own business and leave us to conduct ours in our own way". They gave the Minister a first-class rocket and said that the allocation of council housing was their responsibility, not his. We sat on the touchline and were unable to get into that argument.
Consequently, we failed in our objective of impressing upon the Government that if they produced a Bill of this kind,

it was bound to create anomalies, and that one of those anomalies was the necessity to provide alternative accommodation in urgent cases. In Committee I suggested an amendment to deal with urgent cases and also with the problem of pensioners.
What will happen when a farm worker is about to go into retirement? The local authority will say categorically that it will provide a council house for him on retirement. But then it adds that the house will not be ready straight away, that it will take about six months. As a result, there will be no accommodation available for the incoming key farm worker. These key workers are not easy to find, and there should be some way in which we can handle such emergency circumstances.
The same situation could arise when a key worker is taken ill or has an accident and it is necessary for a replacement to be brought in. The accommodation will not be available. It is no use saying that there will be a pool of rural housing, because that will not be ready.
Our amendments dealing with limited delay will not be called. We have a further difficulty now because there can be no delaying this Bill, so we must assume that it will take effect this autumn. If so, there will be no arrangements of any kind and we shall have a situation in which the existing tenant is the statutory tenant. As a result, there will be nothing in hand for an emergency.
It may be that the Government, in due course in another place, will add some time limitation so that no permanent planning control is given to the person who puts up a mobile home or a caravan. We need provisions of this kind urgently.

Miss Joan Maynard: I oppose New Clause 3, and in doing so my heart bleeds for the farmers when I listen to speeches from Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) talks about the dilemma facing local authorities because they have to consider their waiting lists. The dilemma arises from the system. No tied cottages means no dilemma.
Fifty per cent. of our farm workers already live in free houses. These farm workers and their farmers do not face


this dilemma and neither do their local authorities. It is quite wrong to put an absolute duty on the local authority, and the Government and the local authorities were quite right to resist this suggestion. This would be solving the farmers' problem at the expense of waiting lists, and it would be interfering with the duty of local authorities. Their duty, in this case, is to let houses. If local authorities had had an absolute duty, there would have been an open-ended commitment, and each time they rehoused they would be liable to rehouse again.
The hon. Member for Hornsey talks about the desperate need for a new worker. I suggest that that desperate need could he met in time by paying the rate for the job. We have the strongest objection to our members being put in mobile homes. For too long farm workers have been treated as second-class citizens. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish. Putting farm workers in mobile homes is merely compounding the hardship which they have suffered for so long. It is all very well to say that mobile homes would be temporary. We know from experience that "temporary" has a nasty habit of becoming "permanent".

Mr. Rossi: Has the hon. Lady ever visited purpose-built mobile homes—not caravans—for which there is a great demand? I do not think that she really knows what is meant by a mobile home, otherwise she would not speak like that.

Miss Maynard: Certainly I know what a mobile home is. I do not see why our people should have to be put in one, even for a short period. Most of us prefer to live in houses. So do farm workers.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Circumstances could arise in which a new worker found himself compelled to remain in an unsatisfactory position because there was no accommodation for him to move into in his new employment. He might prefer to move into a mobile home so that he could take up his new job instead of being perhaps unemployed on his previous farm.

5.15 p.m.

Miss Maynard: We come back to the

previous point—all these problems arise because of the tied cottage system.
I am surprised that anyone should be eager to go into a tied cottage from which another man has just been removed. If it were me, I would wonder when it would be my turn.
Another Conservative Member talked about the mobility of labour and moving from tied cottage to tied cottage. But our people do not want to be nomads; they want permanent homes like everyone else. Their children do not want to be removed from one school to another. This sort of hardship has been suffered by farm workers for many years.
We have had cases where a man has died and his widow has been taken to court in order to be evicted. There have been other instances where a man has been ill for a long period or a victim of an accident. When one is faced with emergencies such as these, one does not want to face removal from one's home as well.

Mr. John Farr: I warmly support the new clause moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). I shall give the House a brief example of the situation in which a farmer could find himself when he is denied the use of a house for his farm worker.
One of my constituents is a small farmer in Leicestershire. He started from nothing, but over the years he built up a dairy farm and has considerably expanded his herd. He could not find suitable accommodation for his cowman, so he built a house at the cost of £4,000. At the moment the cowman lives there in a rent-free house, receiving free milk and electricity, and being paid more than £3,500 a year for doing his job. He walks out of his house each morning and goes straight to work without having any travelling expenses. That is a great advantage.
The farmer was forced to build this house because near his village was a pool of council houses built years ago for agricultural workers. In the past 20 or 30 years these have been taken over by non-agricultural workers, and it was absolutely impossible to secure accommodation in them for his cowman.
If this Bill becomes law and the new clause is not accepted, what situation will the farmer face if his cowman seeks advancement in another job? What happens when the farmer is unable to provide a house for the new employee who is taken on to do that man's job? Unless the new clause is accepted, farmers will have to connive, in sheer desperation, at avoiding the law. They will have to house workers in caravans and mobile homes, or go out of business.
The Government are apparently too blind to see that if a farmer is faced with the alternatives of going out of business and selling his dairy herd or housing a replacement cowman in a mobile home hidden behind a Dutch barn, he will opt for the latter. The only logical answer is for the Government to accept the new clause.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Bright-side (Miss Maynard) said that she thought she was helping agricultural workers. I am convinced that within a few years she will be recognised as the hon. Member who has done most harm to the cause of agricultural workers. Can she not see the harm she is doing to farm workers?
Many small farmers will be forced out of business. They will cease to employ farm workers and their land will be taken over by farmers with thousands of acres of land. With the big machines of today, such farmers do not have the same labour requirements.

Miss Maynard: I shall leave it to the good judgment of farm workers to decide whether the Bill is good for them. I would rather rely on their judgment than on the judgment of hon. Members opposite. Can the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) say how many hours a week are worked by the cowman who is earning £3,500 a year? Could he also explain how the industry manages on those farms where the workers live in free houses?

Mr. Farr: The farm worker to whom I referred has to work between 50 and 55 hours a week—depending on the days of the week on which he works—to earn £3,500 a year.
I thoroughly condemn this Bill and warmly support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey. I hope that even at this late stage the Govern-

ment will see sense and accept the new clause.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I intervene briefly to support the new clause moved so brilliantly by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). We should not attack the Minister in this matter. I have seen a sort of light in his eye which shows that he is thinking about the matter very seriously and I have seen him consulting his officials, which raises my hopes.
In addition, half the Members behind him support the new clause and have spoken to that effect. The Minister should be encouraged in his attempt to do good work and accept the new clause, despite the efforts of those who are trying to stop him from doing so.
I shall not insult the Minister by going into details of more cases. They are legion. I hope that the Government will promise to look at this matter again and introduce a revised provision in another place.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Whatever our views on this Bill, we must be constructive in our approach, and that is why I support the new clause. We are considering the case of an exceptional farm worker in exceptional circumstances. I do not want to see all farm workers housed in caravans or mobile homes. I am sure that is not the wish of any hon. Member. However, I think that the Government will have to accept the new clause.
What is the alternative if farm workers have no homes to go to? We cannot deny a farm worker his rights if he has been given a good job on a farm where there is no house available for him, and there are no houses on many farms. When so many farmers are willing to accept the Government's calls for expansion, we should accept the new clause and the provision of mobile homes. We do not want thousands of these homes, but just a few.
If the Minister is not willing to accept the new clause, would he be prepared to allow local authorities to buy a few mobile homes in various parts of the country so that farm workers will be able to live on or near the farms on which they work?

Mr. Peter Mills: I should have declared my interest when I spoke


before, together with the fact that I have lived in a tied cottage for a number of years. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) spoke about her heart bleeding for the farmers. I do not wish to be rude to the hon. Lady, but I should think that many farm workers are extremely anxious about her attitude. Her views are certainly not shared by the farm workers in the South-West who have not taken a similar stand to the hon. Lady. Indeed, there is a very happy relationship between the farmers and the farm workers there, and long may it continue.
A glance round the House shows the interest taken by the Socialist Government and their supporters in our largest industry. The Press and strangers in the Gallery must realise how seriously Socialist Members take the important subject of agriculture and the housing of its first-class workers.
I support the new clause, but only just. I believe that the difficulty created by the Government should be solved rather than that we should have this second-best solution that the new clause represents. It will be essential to have some sort of temporary accommodation, but it will present many problems, including supplying sewerage and water. There might be difficulty about getting farm workers, who have traditionally had adequate and reasonable accommodation, to live for a short while in a mobile home with all the associated problems. Although I accept that mobile homes have improved immensely, they do not provide the real answer. We should get right back to the beginning again and we should not enact the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
I believe that we must support the new clause, although it is not really what is wanted. The local authorities will probably say that there is some temporary accommodation for farm workers, but there may not be quite the urgency that is required to find alternative council house accommodation. There will be many serious difficulties and snags if we accept the new clause, but there is no alternative.
The blame rests squarely on the Government of the day, the Socialists, for the mess that we are getting into in agricul-

ture. The sad thing is that it is so unnecessary. There are a few farmers who have treated farm workers badly, but they represent only very few cases. On the whole, there is a first-class working arrangement between farmers and farm workers.
It is a sad day when my Front Bench colleagues should have to bring forward a new clause of this nature. I hope that the Government will accept it, realising the mess which we are in. The growing lack of confidence is entirely their responsibility.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: In the few minutes that are available I shall make just one point in answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard). The hon. Lady bases her whole case upon the need to advance the conditions of those who work in agriculture. That is a respectable objective, but she will secure exactly the opposite result. That will happen in the same way as those who wanted to give security of tenure to furnished tenants, for good reasons, have secured the drying up of that market. Even Shelter now recognises that.
I shall cite an example from my own constituency. It concerns someone who wishes to increase—I believe he will do so—the output of his arable farm by 100 per cent. To do that he has to have an arable foreman. He has a cottage available. He says that if it were not available by virtue of somebody holding over in circumstances that the hon. Lady may well bring about if the new clause is not acceptable, he would find it impossible to bring about an increase in production. On the other side of the coin, he says that he has had applications from 24 men, half a dozen being of high calibre who are seeking advancement. If the new clause is not accepted, those people will not be able to get the employment that they are seeking.
Only this afternoon we heard of another imposition being laid upon the backs of those who seek to further agricultural production by employing people. They will have to pay more by way of insurance contributions. If the hon. Lady persists in her opposition to the new clause, she will achieve yet again the opposite of what her colleagues, for perfectly proper motives, intend to achieve.
I beg the hon. Lady to listen to the argument—I ask the Government to do likewise—and to recognise that this is a sensible new clause that should be accepted.

Mr. Hawkins: I support the new clause because it is practical. For many years the National Union of Agricultural Workers in Norfolk has been in the forefront of the fight to do away with tied cottages. I pay tribute to many of the NUAW leaders, many of whom are great friends of mine, but the time has gone for the abolition of the tied cottage. I do not believe that there are now circumstances that necessitate its abolition. However, it is still a running sore. It is an issue that is always brought out at every election when those concerned manage to find someone who has been turned out in the past 25 years, and the case is featured in the headlines.
Therefore, I should like to see tied cottages done away with. That is my view, and I have always said so. I should like to see them done away with if there were enough properties in the countryside to enable that to be done in a way that would enable us to provide alternative housing so that those who look after the stock and the farms could go into cottages in the right places. The Bill will not enable that to happen.
I am convinced that we face a real dilemma. I quite understand that district councils are not able to agree to give a carte blanche undertaking immediately to put on their housing waiting lists any farm worker who loses his job or leaves his job. Their job will be made far worse by today's cut-back in housing mortgage arrangements operated by the local authorities. In the countryside the number of houses to be improved constitutes quite a large number, and there will have to be a large cut-back.
I should have gladly accepted the whole of the Bill if there had been plenty of housing available, but there is not. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) asked the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) to listen to reason, but I do not believe that it is possible to reason with the hon. Lady. She does not accept reason. Her attitude is not based on the real interests of her members. It cannot be, or she

would have recognised that her members who work on farms 15 or 20 miles away from their homes and who have to travel backwards and forwards in the winter days to look after stock will be seriously jeopardised if they cannot get a home. They will be jeopardised if they do not have even a temporary home on the farm, and some of the mobile homes are extremely good.
The hon. Lady is bound up with dogma. I have heard many farm workers expressing views entirely contrary to her own. Many of them like living in their tied cottages.

Mr. Armstrong: We have had an interesting and serious debate. I have listened carefully to the proper concern that has been expressed about the effect of the Bill and the attempt to improve it by means of the new clause. I am not sure that the clause would achieve what is intended by Opposition Members. I do not stand on drafting imperfections or on technicalities. I want to leave the House in no doubt about the Government's attitude to the clause.
We believe that it is unacceptable in principle. It would mean that where a local authority did not meet on the spot a substantiated application for rehousing, even in a non-urgent case, the farmer who made the application could give himself planning permission so as to change the use of part of his land from agriculture for the siting of a caravan or mobile home. It would be left to him entirely to decide which part of his land should have the benefit of that permission.
I can see no justification for interfering with local planning authorities' responsibility in that way. I cannot accept the underlying assumption in the clause that a farmer's need to house a worker, especially in less urgent cases, should automatically override elected planning authorities' functions for the area as a whole.

Mr. Fell: Surely it is not beyond the wit of the hon. Gentleman, or that of his Department, to think up a rephrasing of the clause so that we can bring in the local planning authorities.

Mr. Armstrong: I reiterate that I am not complaining about the clause on drafting grounds or on technicalities. It is the


principle behind the clause that I am against. I want to make that abundantly clear.
In response to the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), I am unaware that rockets have been flying about Marsham Street from the district councils or from the National Farmers Union. We have had sensible discussions and reasonable negotiations. I am unaware of any rockets, but I shall have a search made in the near future. We are trying to find a balance between the proper duties of local authorities and the very strong case in agriculture that all of us accept.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The Under-Secretary has referred to principle, but the new clause recognises that it would be only temporary planning permission. It operates only
until such time as the housing authority are able to discharge their duty under section 29".
Therefore, it might be a very temporary caravan which has nothing to do with what I might call the long-term planning interests of the neighbourhood.

Mr. Armstrong: This has been given very careful consideration. I do not rule out that in individual cases there could be very strong arguments for a caravan or mobile home being used to house an incoming worker. I understand that, but if a farmer believes that to be the case, there is no reason why he should not follow the same procedure as any other citizen and seek planning permission from the local authority. It is for the local authority, not for us here, to lay down whether he will get that planning permission. The local authority understands local circumstances and considers each application on its merits.

Mr. Peter Mills: The Government have created this situation and therefore they should do something to counteract the difficulties that farming will experience. It is very difficult at present to get planning permission for caravans in rural areas, hence the need for some further help in this matter.

Mr. Armstrong: Of course it is difficult to get planning permission. That is the way our planning laws work. They are devised to benefit the whole com-

munity. Whatever the balance struck in these matters someone will always want it moved one way or the other. If there is an individual case, however, it is for the farmer to establish it with the local planning authority. Hon. Members cannot expect us in Parliament to move the balance in that way.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will my hon. Friend consider issuing a circular on this matter? I appreciate the force of the points he has made about giving automatic planning consent by the provisions of the Bill. A circular to local authorities, perhaps encouraging them to grant temporary planning consent for the use of a caravan in the circumstances envisaged in the clause, might just meet the case. I accept, of course, that the clause is inappropriate.

Mr. Armstrong: There are not many people who plead with the Department to issue more circulars. Most of the pleas are directed at the issue of fewer circulars.

Sir Timothy Kitson: Is the Minister aware that the areas in which there will be greatest difficulty and where there are probably fewer council houses is in the national parks? If the Minister thinks that it will be possible for a farmer to apply for planning permission to build a replacement house for a farm worker in such an area, he is forgetting the additional costs which are involved in meeting the building requirements in the national parks. He should look closely at his own part of the world, either in the Yorkshire dales or in the north Yorkshire parks area. There is a large amount of agricultural land, there but very few council houses to provide alternative accommodation for the farm worker. It is almost impossible quickly to build a replacement house in such an area, and therefore the Minister's suggestion is unrealistic.

Mr. Armstrong: I was not talking about building a replacement house. I said that I did not rule out arguments in favour of mobile homes or caravans in certain individual cases. I say only that a farmer should pursue an application for planning permission through the usual channels just like any other citizen. If a farmer believes that he has a strong


case, he must seek planning permission from the local authority which can consider his needs together with any planning implications which might arise from a change of land use.
It is normally necessary for the land on which a caravan or mobile home is sited to be the subject of a site licence under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. On the same argument as I have deployed on planning permission, I sec no case why the proper functions of the local authority responsible for licensing should be bypassed.
Much has been said about the increased difficulties that are to be laid on local authorities. That is a matter of judgment and speculation. A great number of people believe that the Act, as I hope it will become, far from creating more difficulty, will strengthen the agricultural industry. That is a matter for judgment, however, and I ask the House to resist the clause.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: The debate, which has had to be speeded up by those of us who feel strongly on the subject because of the provisions of the guillotine, has been notorious for one series of remarks in the speech by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Bright-side (Miss Maynard). She said earlier that her heart bled for the farmers of this country. With her attitude I believe that she will not be satisfied until she has all the farmers bleeding, and I do not believe that she has the interests of farming and agriculture in mind.
The clause is eminently reasonable. It deals with emergencies which are likely to arise as a consequence of the Bill. The Ministry of Agriculture and its various Ministers used to tell us some months ago when the Bill first appeared that it would not materially affect British agriculture. I note that they do not say that very frequently now. Certainly the views expressed by my hon. Friends in

Committee and by the NFU and other organisations outside the House have made it clear that the Bill will have a serious effect on British agriculture.

I was most disappointed with the Minister's reply. I do not think that he has examined thoroughly the wording of the clause. He told us that it was unacceptable in principle, but when he got down to the argument for it he said that even in a non-urgent case planning permission would be granted. Clearly he has not done his homework. Subsection (1)(b) makes clear that this provision would apply only when the agricultural dwelling-house advisory committee had said that the case was urgent. He cannot have read that provision in the clause.

The other factor which he appeared not to understand is that planning permission would be temporary. He cannot have realised the implications of subsection (2) which says that
The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any caravan or mobile home erected pursuant to this section".
We were careful to ensure, therefore, that we would not be setting up a sort of chain reaction whereby the occupant of the caravan or mobile home would then have all the protection of the Act. The clause would not enable the farmer easily to create a caravan park on the site.

The Minister's reply was highly unsatisfactory. I do not believe that the Government appreciate the problems that the Bill will cause for British agriculture. The clause is one way in which we can mitigate some of the hardship, and if the whole thing is unacceptable to the Government in principle, I invite my hon. Friends and the Liberal Party, which I am glad is to support us, to go into the Lobby in support of it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 285.

Division No. 268.]
AYES
[5.49 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Benyon, W.
Bradford, Rev Robert


Arnold, Tom
Berry, Hon Anthony
Brittan, Leon


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Biffen, John
Brotherton, Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Biggs-Davison, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Baker, Kenneth
Blaker, Peter
Bryan, Sir Paul


Banks, Robert
Body, Richard
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Beith, A. J.
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Buck, Antony


Bell, Ronald
Bottomley. Peter
Budgen, Nick




Bulmer, Esmond
Howell, David (Guildford)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Burden, F. A.
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pink, R. Bonner


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hurd, Douglas
Prior, Rt Hon James


Channon, Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Churchill, W. S.
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Raison, Timothy


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
James, David
Rathbone, Tim


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clegg, Walter
Jessel, Toby
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Cockcroft, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Cope, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Cordle, John H.
Jopling, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cormack, Patrick
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridsdale, Julian


Crouch, David
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rifkind, Malcolm


Crowder, F. P.
Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Kimball, Marcus
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirk, Sir Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Drayson, Burnaby
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Knight, Mrs Jill
Royle, Sir Anthony


Dunlop, John
Knox, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Durant, Tony
Lamont, Norman
Scott, Nicholas


Dykes, Hugh
Lane, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lawrence, Ivan
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Elliott, Sir William
Lawson, Nigel
Shepherd, Colin


Emery, Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shersby, Michael


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Silvester, Fred


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lloyd, Ian
Sims, Roger


Fairgrieve, Russell
Loveridge, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Farr, John
Luce, Richard
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fell, Anthony
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert
Speed, Keith


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Macfarlane, Neil
Spence, John


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
MacGregor, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sproat, lain


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Madel, David
Stainton, Keith


Fox, Marcus
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Marten, Neil
Stanley, John


Freud, Clement
Mates, Michael
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fry, Peter
Mather, Carol
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maude, Angus
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stokes, John


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mayhew, Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Goodhart, Philip
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Gorst, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Moate, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D.


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Molyneaux, James
Trotter, Neville


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Monro, Hector
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gray, Hamish
Montgomery Fergus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Griffiths, Eldon
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Viggers, Peter


Grist, Ian
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Grylls, Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Wakeham, John


Hall, Sir John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hall-Davis. A. G. F.
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mudd, David
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neave, Airey
Wall, Patrick


Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neubert, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Newton, Tony
Weatherill, Bernard


Hastings, Stephen
Normanton, Tom
Wells, John


Havers, Sir Michael
Nott, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley
Wiggin, Jerry


Hayhoe, Barney
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Winterton, Nicholas


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Osborn, John
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Hicks, Robert
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Younger. Hon George


Higgins, Terence L.
Paisley, Rev Ian



Holland, Philip
Pardoe, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hooson, Emlyn
Parkinson, Cecil
Mr. Michael Roberts and


Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey









NOES


Abse, Leo
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Allaun, Frank
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marshall. Jim (Leicester S)


Anderson, Donald
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Archer, Peter
Ford, Ben
Maynard, Miss Joan


Armstrong, Ernest
Forrester, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Ashley, Jack
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mendelson, John


Ashton, Joe
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mikardo, Ian


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Bruce


Atkinson, Norman
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
George, Bruce
Moonman, Eric


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Gilbert, Dr John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bates, Alf
Ginsburg, David
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bean, R. E.
Golding, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Gould, Bryan
Moyle, Roland


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Gourlay, Harry
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Bidwell, Sydney
Graham, Ted
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Bishop, E. S.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Newens, Stanley


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grant, John (Islington C)
Noble, Mike


Boardman, H.
Grocott, Bruce
Oakes, Gordon


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ogden, Eric


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
O'Halloran, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hardy, Peter
Orbach, Maurice


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Harper, Joseph
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bradley, Tom
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ovenden, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Owen, Dr David


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Padley, Walter


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hatton, Frank
Palmer, Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Park, George


Buchanan, Richard
Hooley, Frank
Parker, John


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Horam, John
Parry, Robert


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Howell, Rt Kon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Pavitt, Laurie


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Peart, Rt Hon Free


Campbell, Ian
Huckfield, Les
Pendry, Tom


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Perry, Ernest


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prescott, John


Clemitson, Ivor
Hunter, Adam
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cohen, Stanley
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Radice, Giles


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Conlan, Bernard
Janner, Greville
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Robinson, Geoffrey


Corbett, Robin
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
John, Brynmor
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rooker, J. W.


Cronin, John
Judd, Frank
Roper, John


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Kaufman, Gerald
Rose, Paul B.


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kelley, Richard
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cryer, Bob
Kerr, Russell
Rowlands, Ted


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sandelson, Neville


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Neil
Sedgemore, Brian


Davidson, Arthur
Lambie, David
Selby, Harry


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lamborn, Harry
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lamond, James
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Deakins, Eric
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Julius


Dempsey, James
Litterick, Tom
Skinner, Dennis


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Small, William


Dormand, J. D.
Loyden, Eddie
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Luard, Evan
Snape, Peter


Dunn, James A.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Spearing, Nigel


Dunnett, Jack
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Stallard, A. W.


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McCartney, Hugh
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Eadie, Alex
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stoddart, David


Edge, Geoff
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stott, Roger


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Strang, Gavin


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
MacKenzie, Gregor
Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.


English, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ennals, David
Maclennan, Robert
Swain, Thomas


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Madden, Max
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Evans, John (Newton)
Magee Bryan
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mahon, Simon
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marks, Kenneth
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Flannery, Martin
Marquand, David
Tierney, Sydney







Tinn, James
Watkinson, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Tomlinson, John
Weetch, Ken
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Tomney, Frank
Weitzman, David
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Torney, Tom
Wellbeloved, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Tuck, Raphael
White, James (Pollok)
Woodall, Alec


Urwin, T. W.
Whitehead, Phillip
Woof, Robert


Variey, Rt. Hon Eric G.
Whitlock, William
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Young, David (Bolton E)


Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)



Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Mr. Frank R. White and


Ward, Michael
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Mr. John Ellis.


Watkins, David

Question accordingly negatived.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Development Land Tax Act 1976
2. Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976
3. Explosives (Age of Purchase &amp;c.) Act 1976
4 Theatres Trust Act 1976
5. Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976
6. Representation of the People (Armed Forces) Act 1976
7. Fatal Accidents Act 1976
8. Legitimacy Act 1976
9. Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976
10. Restrictive Practices Court Act 1976
11. Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976
12. Police Pensions Act 1976
13. Adoption Act 1976
14. Food and Drugs (Control of Food Premises) Act 1976
15. Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976
16. Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976
17. Edinburgh Merchant Company Order Confirmation Act 1976
18. Strathclyde University and Mackintosh School of Architecture Order Confirmation Act 1976
19. Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1976

20. Australian Agricultural Company and Subsidiary Companies Act 1976
21. Nottingham City Council Act 1976
22. Hove Borough Council Act 1976
23. Scottish Amicable Life Assurance Society's Act 1976
24. British Transport Docks Act 1976
25. Foyle and Londonderry College Act 1976
26. National Exhibition Centre and Birmingham Municipal Bank Act 1976
27. Bucks Land and Building Company Act 1976

RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL

Again considered.

Clause 1

INTERPRETATION AND COMMENCEMENT

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9, at end insert
'and livestock keeping and breeding (whether those activities involve the use of land or not)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 2, in page 1, line 9, at end insert:
'pig-farming, poultry-farming and the rearing and breeding of other animals (excluding game) for the production of food or wool'.
No. 3, in page 1, line 14, at end insert—
'(iii) the extraction from land of any produce which is derived from plant matter'.
No. 4, in page 1, line 19, at end insert—
'(vi) Fish-farming'.
We may also take Government Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.

Mr. Strang: These amendments are basic to the central purpose of the Bill.


The purpose is quite simply to give agricultural workers and their families a right to the roof over their heads comparable with the right which has long since been taken for granted by the majority of workers in other industries. The legislation applies only to agriculture because farm workers as a group have been especially disadvantaged by the insecurity of living in tied cottages. It means that agricultural workers who occupy tied cottages will have a security of tenure which other workers living in tied cottages do not have.
There are few things more important to a worker and his family than the security of their home. It follows, therefore, that it is important that we get the definition of "agriculture" right. There is an additional reason why the definition of "agriculture" is important. That stems from the fact that the Government have always recognised that there is a need for both an assured roof for a farm worker leaving the farm and accommodation for an incoming worker. This is likely to be best met by putting a formal responsibility on the local authority to provide suitable alternative accommodation. That is what the Bill does. It is therefore essential that we look closely at the definition of "agriculture".
There was a lengthy debate in Committee on the question of the coverage of the definition of "agriculture" in the Bill. I undertook to re-examine it closely, particularly in respect of intensive farming systems. I said then that it was our firm intention that workers in enterprises of this kind should be covered by the definition. On examination it appeared that such significant changes had taken place in agricultural technology and practice since the definition we are using was drafted that it was probably wise to bring ourselves up to date and spell out on the face of the Bill our intention to cover such new systems. We have done that by means of the three Government amendments in this group, Nos. 1, 5 and 6.
The group includes two amendments tabled by some of my hon. Friends. One of those amendments seeks to cover all kinds of animal husbandry. I hope that I shall be able to show that the amendments we have tabled fully meet their concern. My hon. Friend's other amendment deals with fish farming. Here, I

am afraid. I must disappoint my hon. Friends. Also in this group there is an Opposition amendment, the purpose of which I think hon. Gentlemen will want to explain, as I am not sure that I have grasped it.
Amendment No. 1 adds to Clause 1(1) (a)(i) a reference to
livestock keeping and breeding (whether those activities involve the use of land or not)".
A definition of "livestock" is given as part of Amendment No. 6
This definition of "livestock" is basically that contained in the Agriculture Act 1947. It covers any animal kept for its products either when alive—for example, eggs or milk—or dead, for example, meat, skins or fur. It also covers animals kept for use in connection with agriculture, such as working horses. The definition covers poultry, but fish are explicitly excluded to remove any doubt on that score. I shall say a little more about that later. However, in view of what I have just said, I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that Amendment No. 2 would probably not achieve their purpose with such certainty as it does not specifically refer to the fact that there need be no connection with agricultural land.
There is no need for an amendment of this kind to exclude game. As game is reared primarily for the purposes of sport, such activity would not be considered agricultural. As the Government have tabled Amendment No. 1, I hope that my hon. Friends will agree to withdraw their amendment.
The position on fish farming is different. I am afraid that we cannot accept either the terms or the intention of my hon. Friend's amendment. Fish farming is not at present regarded for any legislative purposes as part of agriculture. It would be inappropriate to introduce it in this context.
In spite of what happened in another place on 8th June—the carrying of an amendment to the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill—the Government believe that when the current consideration of the report of the departmental working group on fish farming has been completed, it would be appropriate to think about reviewing fisheries legislation. It is subsequent to such consideration


that any legislative measures on fish farming would have to be taken. I regret that I cannot move from that position. The issue goes much wider than this Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend will be willing to withdraw his amendment on the understanding that we are looking right across the board at where it is appropriate to apply agricultural legislation to fish farming. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment, and I make this statement without prejudicing our eventual decision on the review we are carrying out on the legislative and administrative arrangements covering fish farming.
Amendment No. 5 is purely drafting and deletes the words which reappear, modified to deal with intensive horticulture, as part of Amendment No. 6. Amendment No. 6 itself modifies the definition of "consumable produce" by referring to—
land or other growing medium
instead of just to "land", which appears in the Bill as drafted. There have been many developments in this field in recent years, and the amendment ensures that the growing of crops by such modern methods as hydroponics or in plastic bags is regarded as part of agriculture even though there may be no connection with the land.
The purpose of Amendment No. 3, which refers to—
extraction from land of any produce which is derived from plant matter",
is not entirely clear to me. It may be an attempt to cover some aspect of horticulture. If that is the case, I believe that the point is adequately met by the definition of "consumable produce" in Government Amendment No. 6. If the movers have some other intention, I have no doubt that they will so inform the House.
Amendments Nos. 1, 5 and 6 honour a commitment which I gave in Committee and represent a considerable improvement in that they clarify our intentions with regard to an important group of agricultural workers whom it would be indefensible to exclude from the benefits provided by the Bill.

Mr. Jopling: I do not agree with all that the Parliamentary Secretary said in introducing Government Amendments

Nos. 1, 5 and 6. However, I strongly agree with some of his earlier remarks. He said that we must get the definition of "agriculture" correct, otherwise the agricultural industry could find itself in endless difficulties in the years ahead. Bearing in mind the unreasonable guillotine which is hanging over us, we have to go a little quicker than, perhaps, we would like to go, but, at the same time, we must look closely into the definition of "agriculture". As the Parliamentary Secretary will recall, in Committee I took part in the debates about the need to bring the definitions up to date.
The amendments which the Government have brought forward do not altogether clarify the position. There are still several areas which are extremely hazy.
Amendment No. 1 refers to—
whether those activities involve the use of land or not)".
Surely any process of the kind referred to involves land in one way or another.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the raising of crops by the hydroponic process. Although plants grown by that process are not grown in the soil, they are suspended above land and the use of land is involved. The Parliamentary Secretary repeatedly referred to "agricultural land", whereas the Bill refers to "land". The definition of "agriculture" in Amendment No. 1 is very wide.
In Committee we discussed at some length the production of single-cell proteins and we did not receive a very satisfactory answer from the hon. Gentleman. All he said was that the production of single-cell proteins is an industrial process. Even though it is an industrial process, it still makes use of land, because the factory in which single-cell protein material is produced is situated on land and, therefore, makes use of land. We are still in the difficulty we were in in Committee, despite the definitions which the Minister has introduced.
The definition of "agriculture" includes the growing of bacteria in a hydrocarbon environment—about which the Parliamentary Secretary knows a good deal—to provide animal feeding stuffs in large quantities. Some of our large industrial companies are on the point of


deciding to go into large-scale production of these new materials. I understand that the definition of "agriculture" includes the industrial production of substances based on single-cell protein, and I think that that is wrong.
6.15 p.m.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee. This is an industrial process and it should be outside the Bill, but the definition with which he has presented us today does not deal with that. I ask the hon. Gentleman again to get his Department and advisers to consider this matter before the Bill goes to another place so that, if necessary, a further amendment may be moved in the other place.
I do not want to refer at great length to Amendment No. 2, tabled by the hon. Members for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) and Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard). I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that the purpose of the amendment is fulfilled by the existing definitions and those which the Government have tabled today.
Amendment No. 4, also tabled by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, deals with fish farming. The Parliamentary Secretary said that fish farming is not regarded in any agricultural legislation as part of agriculture, and he hinted that, after the review of fishing legislation, new legislation might be presented to the House to deal with fish farming.
The other place seems to have spent an inordinate amount of time in recent years debating fish farming. I cannot remember a debate here on fish farming, but we shall have an opportunity to discuss that subject in a few weeks' time when we consider Lords Amendments to the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. That debate will have a wider application to fish farming, so it would be premature for us to include fish farming in this Bill. Before the other place finally decides what to do with this Bill we shall have debated fish farming on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and there will still be an opportunity for the Government to think again about fish farming when this Bill goes to another place. My advice is to leave aside Amendment No. 4 and,

after our debate on fish farming on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, to invite the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister to make suitable amendments in the House of Lords.
The reason for our tabling Amendment No. 3 is that we have not so far properly discussed why agricultural tied cottages were singled out from all the other tied cottages throughout the country. Figures in the Shelter report published in 1974 show that about one in 10 tied cottages is occupied by an agricultural worker, and that people in many other trades and professions occupy tied houses. I am told that workers in the mining industry occupy 96,000 tied cottages, whereas agricultural workers occupy about 100,000, hotel and restaurant staff occupy 70,000, the clergy—Church of England clergy alone—occupy 13,000, and Forestry Commission workers occupy 36,000.
The purpose of the amendment is to give another definition of agriculture as
the extraction from land of any produce which is derived from plant matter".
That includes coal mining, because coal is a substance derived from plant matter. We wanted an opportunity to find out from the Government why they had singled out agriculture for this pernicious piece of legislation while leaving out other sections of our national housing resources.
The fact that we are considering the amendment with an amendment on fish farming makes a hotchpotch of the debate, but as we have no control over the selection of amendments—I make no criticism of the Chair in saying this—we have no alternative but to debate that with coal mining.
I could see no way in which we could have this debate in Committee. It took a little time to dawn on me how we could initiate a debate to inquire of the Government why agricultural tied cottages had been picked out for their special treatment. I understand that the amendment will also cover the extraction of oil, but I doubt whether there are many tied cottages in that industry, and therefore I think that we can safely forget it.
I believe that it is generally agreed that only 10 per cent. of tied cottages are occupied by agricultural workers. We have had no satisfactory answer when we


have constantly asked the Government why they have picked out agriculture. The nearest to an answer was the statement in the Government's consultative document published about a year ago, in the preface of which they said:
Thus we are consciously distinguishing agricultural from other tied housing. There is no other major industry where the fact of unfurnished accommodation provided by the employer/landlord enters so extensively and so controversially into the relationship between employer and employee.
That is a strange argument. It implies that in the coal industry, the only other industry we are at liberty to discuss tonight, the fact of tied cottages does not enter extensively or controversially into the relationship between employer or landlord and the employee. It implies that all is sweetness and light between the employer and the employee sides of the industry.
As in the previous debate, the Government have not been doing their homework very well. My attention was recently drawn to an extract from a newspaper published in the part of the world from which the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment comes. On 10th September last year the Sunderland Echo reported that 10 physical evictions were carried out by the National Coal Board and 13 other evictions were notified. That is just one example. It would not be difficult to find more to show that physical evictions are going on in other spheres.
That makes nonsense of the Government's assertion in their consultative document that it is only in agriculture that controversy arises. I agree that a certain amount of controversy arises there, mainly because of a minority of people such as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside who have built their political careers on stirring up such matters.
The Government's philosophy is nonsense. There is no case for picking out agriculture. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ask them how they can justify not extending these provisions to coal mining. Perhaps they were not able to find a way to include coal mining in the Bill. I think that I have found a way. I am disappointed that there are no representatives of the coal mining industry present, although I suspect that the hon. Member

for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) represents coal miners. I do not know whether there are still any in his constituency.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: indicated dissent.

Mr. Jopling: Apparently all the pits in the hon. Gentleman's area have been closed down. I am sorry about that, but the hon. Gentleman comes from the area I have been talking about, and I am sure that every now and again he reads the Sunderland Echo.
This is a good moment for the Government to explain themselves. They have not done so properly yet. When we have heard their explanations we shall have to decide whether the House should use the amendment to include coal mining in the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: It is rather a shame for the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) that the grand ceremony of unlocking the Pandora's box of Amendment No. 3 should take place at the same time as a party meeting, so that the House was empty. But I congratulate him on his ingenuity. He could probably extend the meaning of the clause still further. As I am sure his hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) would confirm, "land" includes premises and, therefore, those working in catering could probably be deemed to come within the definition.
I share the view that it is high time we tackled other forms of tied accommodation. I dissent from the statement in the consultative document that it is in agriculture that there is the most intense problem. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary may disagree. But I have rather more experience of the treatment meted out to many people working in catering or as managers of launderettes. I am acutely aware of the hardship suffered by many other categories in tied employment. I sincerely trust that the Bill will be the forerunner of further extensions. However, the hon. Member for Westmorland cannot be seriously suggesting that we should not tackle one aspect of an evil because there are other aspects which we have not yet been able to deal with. It is my hope that we shall be able to deal with those other aspects in the future.
6.30 p.m.
I found it difficult to follow the arguments both of the hon. Gentleman and of my hon. Friend the Minister in relation to the definitions contained in the Bill. I do not see the complete necessity of ensuring that the definition of "agriculture" for the purposes of the Bill should be precisely the same as the definition of "agriculture" for the purposes of other Bills. I would remind the House that the definition of "land" is different in different pieces of legislation, and there is no particular harm in that.
I accept that Amendment No. 1 is preferable to Amendment No. 2, which I shall not move. However, I would be sorry if Amendment No. 4 was not accepted, and I am not happy about the last few words of Amendment No. 6 because we find that hydroponics is more commonly carried on in areas which are remote from alternative accommodation. It would be sad if the protection in the Bill was not available to workers in the fish farming industry living in tied accommodation. Fish farming is developing in remote regions and there is a considerable case for ensuring that the Bill gives protection to people who will work in that industry in future. I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider the issue of fish farming.
I welcome the extension which is being brought about by Amendment No. 1, and because of that I shall not seek to move Amendment No. 2.

Mr. Peter Mills: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) in respect of Amendment No. 3. I am grateful to him for exposing the nonsense which is going on, but I must tell my hon. Friend that his list is totally lacking of a great many people living in tied cottages or tied accommodation. The figure is over 1 million people who are now living in tied homes.
The House might be interested to learn about the list. It includes miners, firemen, policemen and au pair girls; that is something about which the House might not have known very much. The list also includes clergymen, farm workers, hotel workers, forestry workers, the domestic service and the Armed Forces. It would be interesting to find the Government

coming forward with legislation to deal with the accommodation of Service people, who are so vital to our country and so important to the economy of the South-West and other places.
The list of tied accommodation also includes the ambulance service and prison officers. Many of my constituents are prison officers on Dartmoor who are doing a first-class job and living in homes and accommodation tied to their job. Also included in the list are teachers, caretakers, nurses and even waiters. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland did not go far enough in his list of people who are concerned in this problem. It seems to me to be discrimination of the highest order simply to pick out agriculture and agricultural workers.
The National Coal Board is probably one of the largest organisations so far as tied accommodation is concerned. I understand that in 1947, when the coal industry was nationalised, there were 140,000 tied homes, cottages or houses. Of course that number has been gradually reduced to about half, but the interesting thing is that at a time when the Government are bringing the Bill forward the National Coal Board is building more houses. I understand that over the last several years 23,000 new homes have been built by the board. That is an interesting position, I would have thought.
If we look at the problem carefully, we will see that agriculture is being discriminated against. I simply do not understand why the Government have singled that industry out in this way, and it will be interesting to hear the Minister's views about this.
A recent report from Shelter, which is not to friendly to the Conservative Party, pointed out that
It would be regrettable if any proposed legislation embraced only agricultural cottages simply because there is so little information about other industries where tied housing exists".
The Minister has a duty to explain why agriculture is being discriminated against in this way. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland for bringing forward his amendment, and I fully support it.

Miss Maynard: I welcome the fact that the Government have brought forward an amendment to include intensive farming,


because it would have been quite wrong to leave it out. It is a developing part of the agriculture industry, particularly in relation to poultry and pigs, and many people work in it. It is also closely connected to other parts of the agriculture industry. Many people who work in intensive farming live in tied cottages or tied bungalows, and their wages are closely related to those of the more typical agricultural worker.
While I welcome the fact that the Government have brought forward an amendment to cover intensive farming, I hoped that the Bill would cover estate workers and gardeners. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about that, because in a later amendment mention is made of people who work in activities "incidental to agriculture". I suggest that estate workers and gardeners are engaged in work incidental to agriculture. They work in a rural area and in similar circumstances and conditions to farm workers. Their jobs are related to agriculture, they nearly always live in tied accommodation and their wages are closely allied to those of farm workers.
We have again heard the usual argument from the Opposition that agriculture is being singled out. We have been told that the service man is very important to the economy. I suggest that nobody could be more important to our economy than farm workers. But the fact that we are legislating in respect of farm workers does not mean that we on this side of the House are opposed to legislating in future in respect of other people living in tied accommodation.
For example, the catering industry comprises workers who suffer under the present system. Like farm workers, they are a group which is badly organised. One of the reasons why farm workers have been singled out is that because of the scattered nature of their employment it is more difficult to organise them in trade unions. They therefore need protection which other workers are able to get through trade unions.
Anyone who considers the history of our industry will see that this issue has created great bitterness. Conservative Members have made much of the good relations and co-operation in the industry. That co-operation has come all from the

workers' side. The good relations fall flat on their face as soon as a worker becomes too ill to work, has an accident or dies and leaves his widow living in the tied house. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is all very well to shout "Rubbish", but I could relate many hundreds of cases concerning people who have suffered in that way.
Coal miners have been mentioned. It they had suffered anything like farm workers have suffered, their union would have put pressure on the Government long ago for legislation on their behalf. Farm workers are asking that they should have security of tenure like other people. That seems a reasonable request.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) said that I had built my career on campaigning on this issue. He should read his history. This campaign was going on long before I was born. It is true that when I came into contact with the problem I could not stand living with the injustice that this issue does to farm workers. That is why I have campaigned so hard to get rid of the tied cottage system and why I welcome the Bill so much.

Mr. W. Benyon: The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) has it all wrong. He says that he would prefer to legislate for all tied accommodation but as that is not possible it is all right to legislate for agriculture alone. When that is done, the difficulties arise of which these amendments are examples. Definition can go on ad infinitum.
When I first read Amendment No. 1, I thought that it could include an organisation in my constituency which is one of the largest breeders in the country of white mice for experimental purposes. However, Amendment No. 6 defines livestock more closely. I do not want to be facetious, but some people—I think the Chinese—actually eat mice. If mice were produced for eating, they would come within this definition.

Mr. Rees-Davies: What about snails?

Mr. Benyon: That is another example.
As the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden said, fish farming is not being considered because it takes place in very remote areas. The same considerations are being applied there as are


applied to forestry—the Government want to take another look at the matter.
We heard this argument in Committee over and over again. How the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) can say that it is possible in some areas for workers dealing with complicated processes involving large amounts of money, and generally with livestock, to find houses outside the farms, I do not know. She must live in a different world from mine.
The tied accommodation with which I deal in my constituency is totally different. I have been a Member of Parliament for six years and have not come across one eviction involving agricultural workers. However, I have come across two cases involving stewards of workingmen's clubs. When I asked the management of a club to hold off for a while and let the man stay in his house, I was told that he was sitting on top of £40,000 worth of stock and that had to be protected. Yet £40,000 is about the value of a herd of Friesian cows. So this argument does not wash.

Miss Maynard: Is the hon. Gentleman saying, in effect, that money is more important than people, that people should not necessarily have a roof over their heads for themselves and their families and that £40,000 is more important?

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Benyon: The whole purpose of the Bill, I understand—I know that the hon. Lady objects to some of the things that the Government are doing—is to persuade local authorities in these circumstances to rehouse the person in the tied accommodation so that someone else can come in to do the job. She says that the co-operation has been all one way and that the balance must be rectified. We say that agriculture has been unfairly singled out, and that these businesses simply cannot go on without someone living on top of the job. That is the whole argument.
We are not saying that there should not be a process for examining the matter. We have accepted the Agricultural Advisory Committee. We rather like it. We think that it will be a good organisation which will operate between the local authority and the applicant for accommodation, but once the decision has been

made, that the accommodation is considered vital, the whole basis of our argument is that accommodation should be granted.
Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) has done a great service in making clear the unfair treatment of agriculture under the Bill.

Mr. David Price: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) has said. He is right to draw attention to the fact that the difficulty into which the Government have got themselves, and which is expressed in these amendments, and the problem of trying to define agriculture, flow entirely from their selection of agriculture as the one activity in the whole nation for which service tenancies—let us use the proper term—are regarded as socially unacceptable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) read out a list of other occupations which have service tenancies. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) has done us a great service by his ingenious definition in Amendment No. 3, which clearly would bring in coal mining. But this is not just an amusing Committee point. It is worth considering coal mining to see whether we can learn any lessons from it.
Some years ago, when the National Coal Board was trying to persuade miners to move from the West Durham coalfield to the East and West Midlands where the coalfield was expanding, one of the key factors was that it could offer accommodation for the miners' families. The noble Lord, Lord Robens, who was then the Chairman of the NCB, carried out an active programme of visits to the Midlands by miners' families from West Durham before they were asked to decide whether to accept transfer. Thus they were enabled to come down and have a look at what life was like in the Midlands. I am told that in many cases it was the offer of a house that clinched the deal. I wonder whether it would have been socially better to have done what the hon. Lady the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) suggests—that they should have remained in their miners' cottages in those old villages in West Durham, when the main economic vortex, the pit, had been closed. It was the


existence of service tenancies which enabled those miners and their families to move.
I have myself come across similar cases in my own constituency. I have talked to farm workers who have moved from other parts of the country; and what clinched their decision to move to farms in my area was their wives coming and seeing the accommodation offered. This is not possible with local authority housing. I defy the hon. Gentleman to tell me how it can be done, because people have to wait on a housing list. Let me cite the case of a family which came from Lincolnshire to the Test Valley. The man came and looked at the accommodation then he brought his wife, who had a look at it. She said "Yes, I like it here, and I like the house being offered by our potential employer." Does any local authority offer that service?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) said earlier, if this country were flush with accommodation in the countryside it might be the right thing to abolish service tenancies, but with the tight rural housing position this Bill seems to me to be wrong. Therefore I feel that the more narrowly these definition clauses can be drawn the better, because that will limit the harm.
I see no reason for fish farming to be brought in. It is not yet an industry. It is still at an experimental stage. At one point in my career I was marginally involved in one or two of these experiments. Fish farming has been really successful only in Japan, and in relation to shrimp, prawn and shellfish farming. We all know the work done for years by the Torry Institute, but I do not know of any successful scheme on a permanent basis in the United Kingdom suggesting that fish farming has come to stay.
Finally, let me remind the House that the planning authorities are entitled to apply only environmental considerations, not social ones. We have all had experience in our constituencies of farmers needing to find temporary or permanent accommodation. Take the example of a countryman who is not a farmer, who wants extra accommodation, or a mobile home, or a wing added to his own house. Such applications are turned down on environmental grounds when the social

grounds are overwhelming. Often the social grounds are accepted by the district council but are overriden by the county council, which is the senior planning authority.
Everything points to the desirability of making these definition clauses as narrow as possible; and I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland on his great ingenuity.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: It may be inappropriate for a Member for a Scottish constituency to which the Government have not, thank heaven, dared to apply these frightful provisions to intervene in this debate. Since, however, it is a Scotsman who is pushing through this particular piece of dictatorship, it may not be inappropriate for a Scot to come to the rescue of the English at the hands of invaders.
One of the effects of the provisions we are considering which should not be overlooked is that once we separate the home of the agricultural worker from his work we destroy the very foundation of agriculture. I do not have a great deal of experience of agriculture in England, but if those who work in such agricultural units as I know had to leave their place of work for their midday meal or go away in the evening during harvest time, hay time or lambing time for their evening meal, and had then to be brought from the local town or village at the expense of a farmer, and in his transport, so as to do their job, the diligence, application and interest which they have in their work would disappear.
One thing which seems to me to be inevitably true of the Labour Party is that its Members have no principles. If they had principles, and if this proposition was based on principle, as one of my hon. Friends has said it would apply to all service houses. If it was based on principle it would apply to the whole nation, and Scotland is still, thank heaven, and will for ever, I trust, be part of the whole nation. What is more, the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) would in that case apply his principles to his own farm workers, whereas he will vote for the Bill tonight but at the same time he is exercising his right to evict an agricultural worker from his tied house. I find that hypocrisy of the worst, most scandalous kind.


I do not believe that Labour Members have any principles. They simply wait until things suit them. Can the Minister advise me what is the difference in Scotland, except that the Government do not dare do this in Scotland because they believe that it would be too unpopular? They dare to do it in England, but what is different in Scotland? In Scotland we have local authorities which can provide the houses. Normally there are agricultural workers who do not live on the farm. I know the reason. It is that both the Transport and General Workers Union in Scotland and the National Farmers' Union have objected to it and the Government dare not offend the union. In England, however, that is not the case. Here they are not interested in what happens to the agricultural worker or to their beloved consumer. Farm prices and food prices will go up if this legislation goes through, but the Government do not care about that.
There is a kind of Socialist fantasy that it is a terrible thing for somebody to be in a tied house from which he can be put out. I should have thought that the reverse argument might appeal to the Socialist: that it would be thought a very good thing that a person who does a job can automatically be supplied with a house.
I cannot speak for England, but certainly what will happen in Scotland is that a person wanting a house will have only to apply for a job on a farm and, the moment he gets it, keep the house, give up the farm job and go back to some other occupation for which he was trained or which he wants to follow. That is a perfectly simple way of obtaining a house in a particular area when someone is unable otherwise to get one.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The argument that the hon. and learned Gentleman is putting forward is a good debating point. I am not sure that it is related to the amendment.

Mr. Fairbairn: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Whether related or otherwise, it is all the better for being said. Perhaps I shall be able to relate it to every amendment until Labour Members, even though they cannot understand it, at least will have heard it time and time again.

Mr. John Lee: The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be anxious that the supply of housing should be available on such a scale as to make the provisions of the Bill unnecessary. May we take it that he is opposed to his own party's policy of selling off council houses?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not go down that road.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Fairbairn: Indeed I shall not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) said that fish farming was only a small industry. Nevertheless, it is an industry with enormous potential capacity and is on a par with agriculture, creating rather than merely harvesting food. It is important to remember that if agricultural workers are to be deprived of residence at the place where they work, all that the Government will be doing is to put artificially into houses on farms and into agricultural communities people who work at something else. That will wreck the spirit of agriculture. The basis and intention of these proposals is to destroy the spirit of the agriculture industry.

Mr. Rossi: This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate, as is inevitable when we consider the definition of the subject matter of the Bill. I wish to comment on some of the arguments and to deal with the amendments.
Taking Government Amendment No. 1, I find it extremely disappointing that the Government feel it necessary to extend the scope of the Bill to cover livestock keeping and breeding. It was clear from the discussions in Committee that in dealing with animals the greatest harm would be done if a farmer was denied the possibility of placing an employee near to his animals in order to look after them.
We discussed at some length the problems of dairy farmers in the instances where stockmen or cowmen leave a farmer's employment to work in a nearby town where the prospects, the kind of work and the wages paid are different. We envisaged a situation in which a farmer would then find that he could not replace a stockman because he had no alternative accommodation available for


him. A modern dairy herd may consist of as many as 100 cows and cost between £50,000 and £65,000 to build up—that is, about £35,000 for the cattle and an almost equivalent amount for housing, milking equipment and all the rest. Therefore, since we are dealing with considerable sums of money, it is surely the height of imprudence to leave such a valuable asset even two or three miles away from the nearest person who is able to attend and look after it. For example, there could be a sudden fire involving combustion from stored hay for silage, or even from an electrical fault. If there was nobody on the spot to deal with the situation, considerable loss could be sustained. A caretaker in an urban office block or factory can be described as being in tied accommodation. There is nothing in the Bill to deal with that situation. There is no suggestion that a former caretaker in a block of flats or on factory premises should obtain the protection of the Rent Acts so that the owner is unable to have somebody on the spot to look after safety aspects and all the rest of it.

Mr. Lee: Is the hon. Gentleman being serious about this matter? Is he trying to equate the situation of a farm worker with that of a factory night watchman or a member of the fire brigade who may have a duty room near his work but who otherwise would have totally separate accommodation? If that is what he is suggesting, it is palpable nonsense.

Mr. Rossi: Why should it be nonsense for a farmer to have an employee in accommodation so that that employee is able to look after the dairy herd?

Mr. Peter Mills: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that it is not only the farmer who is concerned to have the farm worker near to the stock? The farm worker himself is equally concerned. Having been a cowman in my time, I would not want to live away from my stock. Farm workers have just as much concern for their animals as have farmers.

Miss Maynard: Who gets the cheque for the stock when it is sold? Whose stock is it? It is certainly not the stockman's. We get a little fed up with all

this mythology. We all know who gets the cheque when the stock is sold.

Mr. Rossi: It is surely of interest to the whole nation to see that our food supplies are properly protected. Farming is one of our most important interests and it is folly to put it at risk. That is what will happen if we follow through the argument of the hon. Lady the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard).
Since the hon. Lady has chosen to intervene, I shall tell the House that in Committee I listened to her arguments with utter amazement. She spoke in a bitter, warped and perverse way. She suggested that there had been provocation between the farmers and their workers. It takes two to make a quarrel. The hon. Lady should not make statements of that kind when there is no evidence to back them up. She has made generalised observations that are quite unsupported by evidence, and she has tried to stir up strife and trouble in an industry that has worked well and happily for generations.

Mr. Fairbairn: The hon. Lady suggests that farm workers are not interested in their stock and do not care very much what happens.

Miss Maynard: I did not say that.

Mr. Fairbairn: She certainly gave the impression that farm workers regarded themselves as serfs. That is an offensive suggestion to make, because farm workers throughout the country do the same job as the farmer and are equally interested in it.

Mr. Rossi: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for that intervention. The hon. Lady has propounded a monotonous and singular argument. She quoted the situation of a widow who had fallen sick and was unable to work and said that she would be threatened with eviction by the farmer. She implied that that was the pattern of behaviour in farming. That is a gross slander on the industry for which the hon. Lady has not adduced a shred of evidence.
I give the hon. Lady the lie by quoting the Government's consultative document published after they had carried out thorough research into farming activities. On pages 6 and 7 of that document, consideration is given to the position of


those who cease to be employed following injury, illness or retirement, and also to the position of widows. It states:
It is very much to the credit of the agricultural industry that 14 per cent. of its stock of farm cottages is now estimated to be accommodating persons of this kind.
That is a creditable record for any industry, and I would have thought that Labour Members would accept that as an impeccable source which cannot be gainsaid. It gives the lie to the hon. Member for Brightside. She comes here without evidence, merely to spread dissension and bitterness and promote class warfare. Nothing else motivates her. She does not care for the farmer, the farm worker or the animals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), with great ingenuity, introduced Amendment No. 3, which would widen the whole scope of the Bill to include National Coal Board houses and afford to miners or ex-miners who have fallen sick or retired, and their widows, the same kind of protection as the Bill proposes to give to farm workers. I say at once that the record of the National Coal Board is as good as that of farmers in dealing with retired workers, the sick and widows.
A report prepared by Shelter called "Tied Accommodation", in which that organisation deals with tied housing in the coal mining industry, makes clear that it is the policy of the NCB not to evict, even in areas of expansion and development. Evictions do, however, take place. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland quoted figures showing that it is necessary in some circumstances for evictions to take place, as, indeed, it is necessary in the farming industry. Here we have two comparable situations in which the employers have similar attitudes, yet one is selected for special treatment in the Bill and the other is overlooked.
The hon. Member for Brightside said that farm workers needed the protection of the Bill but that coal miners did not because the farm workers' union is weak and the coal miners' union is strong. We know that the farm workers' union is weak. It represents less than one-quarter of the total number of farm workers. The other three-quarters have the good sense not to join. I am sure that when the Bill becomes law even more

farm workers will have the good sense to stay out of the union, because they will see the damage which has been caused. Of the 406,000 full- and part-time regular farm workers, only 90,000 are union members.
Let us assume that the farm workers' union is as strong as the NUM. Does it necessarily follow that the farm workers would be more protected? The NCB follows a policy of non-eviction, allowing the retired, the infirm and widows to remain in possession of their accommodation. But the Shelter report states that the NUM takes an entirely different view. It says that the union is conscious of the problem of growing waiting lists and that the pressure from union members is forcing the officials to review their policy.
The report states:
At one pit it was stated by union officials that they, unofficially, put pressure on some non-serving miners to leave 'voluntarily' the colliery cottages. They would not say exactly what form of pressure was used, but clearly they felt strongly that cottages should be for active miners only".
That is a curious situation, because the protective union body is putting pressure on workers living in tied cottages to move out even when the landlord is happy to allow them to remain there. I do not see, therefore, that having a strong union is such a protection to the workers in some circumstances.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does that report indicate the policy of the NCB on miners who leave the industry and take up jobs in agriculture, for example, without relinquishing the tenancy of their houses?

Mr. Rossi: The report indicates that the NCB is prepared to allow former miners to remain in their cottages. It is the union that is forcing them out. That destroys the case made by the hon. Member for Brightside, and I am grateful for the opportunity of exploding that myth.
To talk of farm workers wanting the abolition of tied cottages is a nonsense. The study carried out on behalf of the J. Arthur Rank Centre shows that, whether or not farm workers belong to a union, over 5 per cent. of those sampled believe in the abolition of tied cottages and 60


per cent. think that it is necessary for some kinds of agricultural workers to live in tied cottages. We know that 29 per cent. think that it is necessary for some farm workers to live near their work, if not in a tied cottage.
That we should proceed along the Government's line is against the national interest. From the figures I have given, because of the need for men to be near livestock for its protection we find that there is no need, no request and no demand for bringing the tied cottages within the purview of the Rent Acts except in the mind of the hon. Member for Brightside, whose motives are dubious to say the least.
Will the Minister explain the exact effect of Amendment No. 6? I refer to the first part, in which "consumable produce" is defined. During discussions on that definition in Committee, we were concerned that "agriculture" included.
the production of any consumable produce which is grown for sale or for consumption or other use for the purposes of a trade or business or of any other undertaking".
There was a direct relationship between land and growing something on land
for consumption or other use for the purposes of a trade or business".
The relationship between the produce and the land was a perfectly clear one, and the ordinary understanding of the word "agriculture" clearly applied to that definition.
The Government have departed from that definition and have produced a different one in Amendment No. 6. Here there is a severance from "grown from land" because the new definition speaks of "consumable produce" as meaning something
grown for consumption or other use after severance or separation from the land".
Therefore, we keep to the agricultural concept in the old-fashioned or strict sense. But the Government's amendment goes on to say
or other growing medium on or in which it is grown".
That is an entirely new concept.
In Amendment No. 3 my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland was able to use the phrase
the extraction from land of any produce which is derived from plant matter".

He did so to bring in the tied cottages of coal miners. Has the Minister considered that he would seem to have enlarged the definition of "consumable produce" so widely that he has brought in publicans? Every publican of every public house which is selling real beer is now caught by the Government's definition, because the yeast which is consumed is in fact grown within a "growing medium". It is grown not on the land but within a "growing medium".
Therefore, it would seem, if it is not stretching the language too far, that the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords may have an interesting exercise on this new definition which the Government are putting forward for our consideration at the eleventh hour. I wonder whether the Minister can tell me whether it is the intention of the Government now to bring all public houses within the ambit of the Bill in the same way as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland is trying to bring in all colliery cottages. If that is not the Government's intention, will they consider their definiton and tell me how pubs are not covered?

Mr. Lee: The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has shown considerable ingenuity. I have considerable respect for his knowledge of the law, and on quite a number of matters I have found myself in agreement with him. He has been very helpful to me in some matters which I have long pursued, the questions of pyramid selling and the difficulties of secondary mortgages. He knows that I bear no personal animus towards him, but if I may say so he has let slip a Poujadist animus against the National Union of Agricultural Workers which I think the leaders of his party, if not he himself, will have cause to regret. His remarks about the union can only mean one thing—that he does not want a strong union because he does not want the interests of the persons it seeks to represent to be properly protected.

Mr. Rossi: I did not say that. I was trying to say that the claim of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mrs. Maynard) to represent the farm workers was ill founded because the union she represents represents only a small proportion of the totality of farm workers.

Mr. Lee: We would like to know whether the hon. Gentleman would like


to see all agricultural workers in the union. If they all became members of the union, its representative capacity inevitably would be the greater and they would also be stronger. Does he want the union to be strong or weak?

Mr. Rossi: I would like it to be the absolute free choice of the individual farm worker to belong to the union or not to belong to it.

Mr. Lee: That is clever but it does not quite answer the question. I would have thought that anyone who does not really want all members of an occupation to belong to the appropriate union must be regarded as not having a considerable regard for the welfare of those persons. The trade unions, like all other bodies, have their faults, and no doubt the National Union of Agricultural Workers has its faults too. But the hon. Gentleman has adopted an odd reasoning.
Those who support Amendment No. 3 are having their fun, and it may well be that in certain circumstances we could arrive at some peculiar results in interpretation. What is behind the Bill and the Government's attempts to improve it? Everyone, I would have thought, ought to be entitled to protection as far as possible if he occupies tenanted accommodation. It is strange that it is only in recent years—the Labour Party probably bears some of the responsibility for this—that we have extended to council house tenants in many ways much of the protection that private tenants have enjoyed through the accumulation of the Rent Acts over the years.
That is an anomaly which many of us felt very dissatisfied about. Indeed, we are by no means entirely satisfied with the law as it stands. But such law now applies to almost every occupation one might wish to name in which there are people who, by virtue of their occupaton, find themselves living in accommodation which, for historic reasons or reasons of occupational convenience, is associated with their work. One might include lighthouse keepers; they seem about the only odd exception not to have been mentioned so far.
What we want to hear from those who seek to limit the scope of the Bill or

to ridicule it because it may produce one or two bizarre anomalies is whether they are prepared to see that we have enough rented accommodation available so that the Bill will not be necessary. In an ideal world in which we had all the rented accommodation, including council house accommodation, that was necessary, particularly in the remote parts of the country—places where, unfortunately, the Labour Party does not show itself in much strength so that we do not get much council house building—the Bill would perhaps become unnecessary or have only marginal importance. But we have not reached that situation.
The people who are engaged in agricultural occupations are probably more vulnerable by virtue of the remoteness in which many of them live in the physical sense, and for that reason the Bill, for all the peculiarities that it may produce, is necessary.

Mr. Fairbairn: I do not quite see how the hon. Gentleman's argument proceeds. If he is working on the premise that there is insufficient rented accommodation, he must accept that if anyone is responsible for that situation it must be the Labour Party, because it has tried to kill the private rented sector. It does not help the situation if people who are not agricultural workers are in agricultural cottages while people who are agricultural workers are in other rented accommodation. It merely makes the situation bad for the agricultural workers as well.

Mr. Lee: Of course it produces difficulties, but the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the rationale behind the Bill is to prevent people from suddenly finding themselves, because of the ending of their occupation, out on their ear. It may be for a variety of reasons. It is bad enough for a man to lose his job, but if he loses the roof over his family's head as well it is a double misfortune. I take issue with the hon. and learned Gentleman when he claims that the Labour Party was responsible for the drying up of rented accommodation, which has been going on since the First World War. It is important to replace the lost accommodation, and certainly more quickly than of late, by a massive increase in public rented accommodation.
My hon. Friend has not suggested that the majority of farmers will cruelly take


advantage of the law as it stands. Most farmers behave decently and compassionately, just as the National Coal Board is a decent and compassionate landlord. But we must make provision for the minority of malevolent people and the minority of unfortunate people. That is why the Bill is necessary and, in my view, long overdue.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Strang: When I opened the discussion on these amendments I said that they were central to the purpose of the Bill. I did not realise that the debate on them would be the occasion for a discussion on whether the Government were right to tackle the problem of insecurity in agricultural tied cottages only, as opposed to tied cottages generally.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) mentioned industrial production of single-cell proteins. We discussed this in Committee. It is not our intention to cover basically industrial processes. Similarly, the Bill refers to agricultural land. The hon. Member for Westmorland was quite right: we have made this important departure in the definition of "agriculture". We have disengaged the link with land in the previous definition. There is no question of our being constrained and confined by previous meanings of "agriculture", because we are writing a new definition which is different from all previous definitions.
There is no question of the definition of "growing" involving the production of beer or whisky, for example. It is not our intention that the Bill should apply to tied cottages in the brewing and distilling industries. The fact that the product has to grow excludes beer and whisky. I am not sure to what extent beer and whisky have been grown in the sense of agricultural or horticultural products.

Mr. David Price: In the production of beer malt grows after it has left the land, and the fact that it grows is one of the first processes of turning barley into malt.

Mr. Strang: I do not think one can talk about beer growing or whisky growing. Beer and whisky are the products which are consumed, not the malt.

Mr. Rossi: But "growing" means "increasing in size and volume", and this happens as a result of fermentation.

Mr. Strang: I am a biologist and I am not sure that I regard that as an adequate definition of "growing". Growing involves a lot more than just increasing in size and volume. We shall look at this and then explain the position to hon. Members. If we find that it applies to the whisky distilling industry, we shall inform them accordingly.

Mr. Fairbairn: The ripening of a banana in a factory is regarded under the rating regulations as growth. Surely the Minister is putting the matter very narrowly.

Mr. Strang: As we continue this debate I am sure that we shall have more ingenious suggestions about the tied cottages which should be encompassed by this legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) mentioned fish farming. We do not rule out the subsequent application of this legislation to fish farming. A report is being prepared on the whole question of the extent to which legislation applied to agriculture should be applied also to fish farming. Until we have considered representations on that report, we shall not apply this legislation to fish farming any more than we intend to apply other legislation concerned with agriculture to fish farming. The possibility of our doing so lies open in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) discussed estate workers. I think we have gone a long way to meeting the points she raised. We have made it clear that all intensive livestock production is covered by the Bill and that new forms of intensive horticultural production are also included. We have not been able as yet to come up with a satisfactory definition of "agriculture" which would cover the pure estate worker—the man wholly employed in estate work. However, my hon. Friend has acknowledged that in a subsequent amendment we have gone a long way to meeting her in practice, because we have made it absolutely clear that where a worker does agricultural work as well as estate work he is covered by the Bill.
The central question asked by Conservatives today has been why the Government have applied this legislation solely to agriculture. There can be no argument but that the scale of injustice associated with tied cottages in agriculture has been much greater than that in other industries. Surely hon. Members have read their history books and are aware of the social history of the development and organisation of agriculture and the long-standing campaign on this issue. Hundreds of farm workers have taken time off work, and sometimes have even lost pay, to come to London to lobby Members of Parliament and to urge them to bring forward legislation to free them from the insecurity inherent in the tied cottage system. It is preposterous to suggest that somehow the tied cottage in agriculture is comparable with anything in the Armed Services, mining, or catering.

Mr. Shepherd: The Minister has not explained why Scottish agriculture has asked not to be included. If the Government consider that there are injustices in the system in England, why not in Scotland, too?

Mr. Strang: The hon. Member should give me a chance. I shall come to that.
There is a long-standing grievance—a very deep grievance—which stems from the injustice of the agricultural tied cottage. In the industries which hon. Members have cited, mining particularly, there is nothing like the proportion of workers in tied cottages. Only a very small minority of miners live in tied cottages. There is a major difference between the position of a miner and his family and a farm worker and his family, and that difference stems from the power which the miners' organisation has over those houses.
Hon. Members must surely know about the committees that allocate tenancies in these houses. They must realise that decisions about the future occupancy of National Coal Board houses are not taken unilaterally by the NCB in the way that a farmer takes a unilateral decision. They must appreciate how great is the difference between the situation in which a workers' union predominates in the decision making and the position on the farm where the farmer alone

is left to decide whether a worker remains in a cottage after ceasing to work on the farm.
When the farm worker ceases to work on the farm, he and his family have no legal right to live in the cottage. If the farmer goes to court, the court is obliged to give him vacant possession, allowing only a limited period of occupancy for the farm worker. It is therefore monstrous for hon. Members to suggest that somehow this Bill is not wanted by agricultural workers.
I am sorry that the Rank Organisation document has been quoted again. It contains the question
Do you think there are any categories of worker who need to live in tied cottages to do their job?
In the course of replying to that question many agricultural workers answered in the negative and actually volunteered the suggestion that tied cottages should be abolished.
The Bill will give farm workers and their families an element of security equivalent to that enjoyed by other workers. It removes the fear of eviction—[Interruption.] Because the Bill does not apply to Scotland the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) has not troubled to read it. The Bill gives the farm worker and his family security, which is only right in the second part of the twentieth century.
It also requires the local authority to provide alternative accommodation for that worker and his family when they cease to work on a farm. The Government have therefore written that provision into the Bill. The reasonably constructive attitude taken by the NFU on this issue stems from the fact that the Government have included that provision. It is recognised that it makes sense for farm workers to live on the farm.

Mr. Fairbairn: I enjoyed the lecture from a biologist to a lawyer telling me that I had not bothered to read the law. But I want a simple answer. If this longstanding grievance has occurred, why is the Bill not being applied in Scotland?

Mr. Strang: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for raising that issue because I am just dying to tackle it.

Mr. Fairbairn: Well, die then.

Mr. Strang: The argument in favour of having this legislation in England and Wales applies equally to Scotland. Farm workers there have been evicted from accommodation and on many farms there is a basic insecurity for tenants of tied cottages. If legislation of this nature is applied to Scotland, it will give the farm worker and his family the security to which they are entitled.
The Government are committed to implementing a Bill tackling the problem in Scotland. But there has always been separate housing legislation for England and Wales and Scotland. Housing in Scotland is always tackled separately. We have made clear that the manifesto commitment to agricultural workers and their families in Scotland stands, and it is the Government's intention to honour that commitment. The details of the legislation and its timing are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Lee: If we incorporated legislation that impinged upon Scottish law in a Bill dealing with English law, there would be one hell of a row from the Scottish Members, and not only from the SNP.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Strang: One thing on which the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire and I agree is that we want to continue to debate these basic issues in a United Kingdom context. I support devolution, and one thing we do not want is for Scotland no longer to be part of the United Kingdom.
The basic purpose of the amendments is to make absolutely clear the definition of agriculture. I think it is sensible and I am confident that the definition will cover all bona fide agricultural workers, and I therefore commend the amendments to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 5, in page 2, leave out lines 1 to 4.

No. 6, in page 2, line 10 at end insert—

'( ) For the purposes of the definition in subsection (1)(a) above—
consumable produce" means produce grown for consumption or other use after severance or separation from the land or

other growing medium on or in which it is grown;
livestock" includes any animal which is kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the carrying on of any agricultural activity, and for the purposes of this definition "animal" includes bird but does not include fish'.—[Mr. Strang.]

Mr. Strang: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 22 leave out 'and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may also discuss Government Amendments Nos. 8, 22, 28 and 29. We may also discuss Amendment No. 23, in Schedule 2, page 36, line 31, after 'employment', insert:
'under a contract of service as defined in the Agricultural Wages Act 1948'.

Mr. Strang: This group of amendments deals with a number of matters affecting the definition of "agriculture". Amendment No. 29 covers the contract of employment. In the debate in Standding Committee on 25th May the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) pointed out that the Bill might be defective in failing to specify that employment in agriculture should be on a contract of service. I hope that on that basis the Opposition will withdraw Amendment No. 23.
I could deal with reducing the number of hours from 40 to 35, but if the Opposition are happy, I shall leave the matter there. It is my understanding that it is the desire of the House to move quickly to subsequent amendments as time is limited.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made:

No. 7, in page 2, line 22, leave out 'and'.

No. 8, in page 2, line 24, at end insert:
'and
( ) Part III contains supplementary provisions'.—[Mr. Strang.]

Schedule 2

PROTECTED OCCUPIERS IN THEIR OWN RIGHT

Mr. Francis Pym: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 33, line 47, at end insert:
'for the same employer or 182 out of the last 208 weeks in every other case'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 12, in page 33, line 47, at end insert:
'unless he occupies a dwelling-house which was built and made ready for occupation on or after the operative date or the date of operation for forestry workers as the case may be'.

Mr. Pym: Amendment No. 11 deals with the definition of workers who are to qualify for and benefit from, if those are the right words, the privileges that are given in the Bill. The Bill provides for a qualifying period of nearly two years—namely, 91 weeks out of the past 104. In our view, that is too short a period. We believe that it will open the door to abuse.
In Committee we moved an amendment to make the definition five years or, alternatively, two years for working for the same employer. That compares with this amendment, which is either two years for the same employers or otherwise three and a half years. After the debate in Committee, when our amendment was defeated by eight votes to seven because the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) was not able to be present, we decided to return to the subject on a more modest basis.
We wish to question how long somebody should work in agriculture before being regarded as virtually a permanent agricultural worker. We say that two years is not long enough. We fear that a minority will put in only two years' work to qualify for the privilege, which is to be gained under the Bill as it stands, of getting these housing rights. Although only a small number of people may do that, I fear that it will be done by some. They are more likely to do so in present circumstances when the supply of housing is rather short and waiting lists are rather long. There is a natural desire among some people to find a house in any way possible. We should regret that there should be any opportunity for a minority, however small, to move into a house on the terms provided by the Bill and to claim that they are agricultural workers when they have no intention of staying in agriculture for very long.
It is important for farmers and employers generally to choose their staff wisely. Indeed, they already take a great deal of trouble in choosing employees,

and I believe that they will always do so. When, however, a person takes on someone as an employee, he can never be sure that he has chosen someone who will be a success and who will stay in the job for a long time. If a mistake is made, and if someone cons a farmer into taking him on in order to get a house, the result is unfair on everyone, producing a hardship, which in a way is harder than anything suffered under the tied house system as it now exists.
Throughout the debate we have heard of the consequential hardships that will arise as a result of the Bill. They will be hardships greater than anything that the Bill seeks to cure. I am concerned that someone who obtained the right of occupancy in such a way would be doing so on a basis that was unfair to genuine farm workers. It would be unfair to established and professional farm workers. In many cases they would resent people acquiring a house and the right to stay in it by, as it were, the back door. It is for that reason that we have tabled Amendment No. 11. We seek to alter the two years provision to three and a half years. We hope that the Government, notwithstanding the views of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), who seeks to make it an even shorter period, will feel that in all the circumstances the longer period is wise and right.
Amendment No. 12 relates to the same schedule but to a different issue. Its purpose is to exclude from the Bill any house that is built after the Bill becomes an Act, if it is enacted, or after the operative date. In other words, it refers to new houses. Therefore, the amendment is related to investment in housing.
The agriculture industry has a fine record of housing its workpeople. If that were not so, clearly the Bill would never have been put forward. The industry has housed its workers without causing any trouble to Governments and without imposing in any way on local authorities. It has invested successfully for the purpose of its own business and its own workpeople. It has invested in housing of a good standard. Obviously, by definition, new housing is of a high standard, but the industry has modernised many old houses to bring them up to a high standard.
I cannot keep from the House my belief that because the industry has been so progressive in its housing policy, and so successful in looking after its staff, doing so on an independent and private basis, the Government feel that they must intervene and interfere. There is undoubtedly a doctrinal aspect to the Bill.
The fact is that new houses are not being built by the industry at present. I referred to this on Second Reading. We know that plans for building new houses on farms have been cancelled. We want to see new houses going up on farms, but that will not happen if the Bill remains as drafted.
Surely the Government share the view that it is in the national interest for agriculture to continue contributing to new housing in the countryside. If it is to do so, however, it will require more than an amendment to the Bill. It will require a reduction in taxation. It might require the Chancellor to change his mind about one of the matters to which he referred this afternoon. It might require better prospects for the industry and more confidence. That will be necessary before farmers invest in new housing. The industry will also require an amendment to the Bill so that if a farmer invests in a new house, which is expensive, and puts a farm worker in it, he will know that he will be able to retain the house for his business for all time. That is the purpose behind the amendment.

Miss Maynard: I shall speak against the amendment. I find it hard to believe that anyone would undertake two years' hard labour in agriculture merely to get a house. I find that an unacceptable proposition. As someone who was born and bred in the agriculture industry, I cannot accept it. I think that two years should be the maximum.
When farmers engage men, they have to judge those that they are to employ. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has said that a farmer can never be sure. Obviously he cannot, but it is strange that the better employers tend to keep their farm workers for a long time, whereas bad employers tend to be constantly changing their workers. The character of the employer is rather

more important than judgment, although the two matters may well go together.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the good housing that is available in tied accommodation. I agree that some of the houses are good, but some are very bad. Generally, the bad houses tend to be occupied by older workers. The right hon. Gentleman says that there is a need to build new houses in the rural areas. I remind him and his hon. Friends who own the land that it is their friends who control the local authorities. The workers do not own the land or dominate the district councils. It is not the responsibility of the farm workers if we do not have enough houses in certain areas.
We have heard a lot from Opposition Members about the Bill being doctrinal, but there has been a considerable amount of doctrine from the Benches opposite. Hon. Members opposite always remember those whom they represent in this House.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I declare again the interest I declared in Committee, though I must tell the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) that, as far as I am able, I endeavour to represent all my constituents. The implication of the hon. Lady's remarks is that all agricultural constituencies represented by my hon. Friends must include 20,000 or 30,000 hard-faced farmers. That is not a very realistic proposition.
I support Amendment No. 11 very strongly and I stress the importance of Amendment No. 12. I am convinced that without Amendment No. 12 no more new houses will be built by agricultural landlords or owner-occupiers. How on earth could it be otherwise? The industry has a fine record in providing new housing for the benefit of its workers and, ultimately consumers. But what will be the future incentive for landlords and owner-occupiers to build new houses? Only in the first instance will they have any control over who occupies a house. They will be unable to obtain an economic rent if the occupier leaves the industry but remains in a house. They will rely solely on the good will of local authorities, and this will vary in different parts of the country.
I hope that the Minister can tell us why and how landlords and owner-occupiers will build houses in future and what incentive there is for them to do so.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The Minister said earlier that no farm workers will suffer if the Bill becomes law. He could not be more wrong. If the Bill is passed in its present form, it will destroy the ladder of promotion in the farming industry.
Farms in my constituency are generally quite small, but many employ a shepherd or young herdsman who wishes to get experience in one type of farm and then moves on to another. If the Bill becomes law, those people will be unable to do so.
On an early-morning radio programme eight weeks ago I heard the General Secretary of the National Union of Agricultural Workers say that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) did not speak for the union. He could not be more right. The hon. Lady does not speak for the workers in the industry that I know. I should declare an interest, because I was once an agricultural worker. The Bill will destroy the ladder of opportunity for young and ambitious men, which is something for which they will not easily forgive the Government.

Mr. John MacGregor: I start by expressing my frustration and annoyance that we are having to condense debates on important matters because of the guillotine.
For reasons beyond our control, no hon. Member from Norfolk was able to serve on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill. I was involved in the Finance Bill Committee. However, I have taken soundings and had consultations with many Norfolk farmers, agricultural workers and district councils, and I find that the only opportunities to express their views are on this amendment and the amendments to the important Clause 29, which, it seems, we shall not reach. This is another example of how the guillotine is preventing us from giving proper consideration to the Bill and to representations from all parts of the country. I regret my inability to inform the House of the views put to me

about Clause 29 and the obligations of local authorities.
In Norfolk we had a system which operated in consultation with local authorities and proved very satisfactory in dealing with farm workers approaching retirement. Local authorities were always advised well in advance, and the arrangements were worked out with the NFU. This system would not deal with the case of someone who had to leave a tied cottage and needed accommodation in a council house quickly, but it would have been possible to work out a way of dealing with the problem.
Farmers are now alarmed at certain parts of the Bill. Local authorities assure me that they will use their best endeavours to help, but they can give no guarantees. Unless major changes are made to the Bill farmers in many parts of Norfolk will sell surplus tied cottages immediately and the remainder as soon as existing tenants no longer need them. There will be a big rundown in the number of these cottages. Farmers fear that they will be unable to get back their accommodation because local authorities will not be able to deal quickly enough with tenants who have to leave.
As the Government are determined to push the Bill through, they should try to meet those legitimate fears and avoid the dangers which might arise. There are two fundamental ways in which it could be done. One would be to amend Clause 29 and make it a statutory obligation on local authorities to deal with this problem. Alas, we are unlikely to have the chance to debate that proposition. The other way would be to accept this amendment. Many farmers feel that it would be reasonable slightly to extend the period in the definition.
I say to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) that it is no good looking at the past. What matters is what will happen in the changed situation. Some people will attempt to persuade farmers that they would be good agricultural workers in an attempt to jump the council house queue. That is one of the legitimate fears of local authorities and farmers in the new situation created by the Bill.
By accepting Amendment No. 11, the Government would be meeting their major objectives and also the legitimate


fears of the farming community and district councils. By extending the period, it is probable that those who took up agricultural employment and benefited from the Bill would be genuine agricultural workers. Councils would have a little more time to deal with the problems with which they would be faced in certain circumstances and they would be able to deal much more easily not only with the demands of farm workers nearing retirement—we have dealt with that problem in Norfolk—but with the case of someone who is evicted because of unsatisfactory work, sickness or any other reason.
Fewer people would be going through this process if the time was extended and fewer obligations would be imposed on local authorities. It would guarantee that the farmer was more likely to get his cottage back when he needed it in the circumstances that we described earlier. It is not unreasonable to ask that the period be extended. It would still meet the Government's main objective for the legitimate long-term agricultural worker.
I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will accept the amendment. I hope that they will also do something about Clause 29 and insist on statutory obligations for local authorities. If we cannot debate that matter tonight, I hope that the other place will do something about it. If those things are done, the damage that might be caused by the Bill will be greatly mitigated. The loss of confidence among farmers will also be reduced and there may not be the selling of cottages to cope with surplus and transitional situations. In that event, we may be able to say that, given that the Government are determined to get the Bill through, at least they got it through in a more acceptable and sensible form.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I should like to make a few brief remarks now on Amendment No. 12 and reserve the remainder of my comments for the rest of the evening. This is a vital amendment because in my constituency there is a virtual freeze on new agricultural house building. In reinforcing support for the amendment,

however, I should like to refer to the existing stock.
There is a large number of empty cottages in my large constituency. I am sure that that is the situation throughout the agriculture industry as a whole. That is the direct result of this measure. If it is passed, those cottages will be sold not to constituents who need housing but to others coming in from outside who want second homes. The net result will be a desperate need for council housing. That situation is not unique to towns. There is a desperate need in the country as well. That situation will add to the general crisis regarding matters affected by this measure. I recommend Amendment No. 12 as well as Amendment No. 11.

Mr. Strang: I think that we have had a useful debate on these amendments. Their effect would be to restrict the opportunities for protection under the Bill, first, by extending the qualifying period to four years in the industry or two years with a single employer and, secondly, by disqualifying any such qualified workers who happen to be living in a dwelling-house built and fit to occupy after the respective operative dates for agriculture or, as the case may be, for forestry. The substance of both amendments was raised and exhaustively debated in Committee. Therefore, we need not spend a great deal of time on them.

Mr. Fell: We have reached the stage in this House where almost everything is sent to Committees upstairs. Not all hon. Members are able to read everything that goes through in Committees. Therefore, it is up to the hon. Gentleman to tell us all about the Committee and not to wipe it off just like that.

Mr. Strang: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman all about the Committee. The House has to operate to some extent on the basis that Members who are deeply interested in certain matters, but who are unable to serve on the relevant Committees, will take the trouble to read the arguments put forward by the Opposition and the replies to them.
I note that the Opposition have moved their position slightly on Amendment No. 11 in that the period of service in the industry has come down to four years


from five years, which they argued in Committee, and that they now agree with us that the worker should have the opportunity to break his agricultural employment for a limited time without losing his qualification. Nevertheless, the arguments rehearsed in Committee and in the farming Press over recent months have not shaken me in my conviction that two years in the industry is long enough to sift out the genuine farm worker from anyone who might be tempted to use the Bill as a quick step to assured housing.
Further, I am still convinced that, as I said in Committee, to provide for restriction of the qualifying period to service with one employer, however short that period might be, could lead to abuse and to restrictions on mobility. In the light of that argument, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
We should bear in mind that the Association of District Councils recommended that the qualifying period should be two years. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) was unable to serve on the Committee, but we had some valuable discussions on these matters. From what the hon. Member said, it is obvious that he has looked at the report of our proceedings. We are putting a statutory obligation on local authorities. I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman informed the House that local authorities in Norfolk will use their best endeavours. As the Association of District Councils said, what more can a council do than its best to provide alternative accommodation? The hon. Gentleman put his finger on the important point that, at the end of the day, what counts—I do not want to dwell too long on this point, because it is peripheral to the amendment—is the co-operation that will take place in practice between the local authorities and the farming industry.
8.15 p.m.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), who spoke on a number of occasions in Committee, repeated that the Opposition support the concept of the agricultural dwelling-house advisory committees. I am convinced that we are establishing a framework that will enable us not only to give the farm worker the security that he needs but will meet the legitimate need of the industry for accommodation for incoming workers.
The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) does not seem to appreciate that the problem that faces a farmer when a worker who ceases to work on his farm refuses to vacate a cottage already exists. Under present legislation, although a worker has no right in law to that roof over his head, everyone recognises that the farmer has to carry on, often for a period of six months, without possession of the cottage. We are creating a better arrangement. Where a farmer needs a house for an incoming worker and the occupying farm worker and his family will be happy to move out to alternative local authority accommodation, particularly if he is about to retire or to move to work which has nothing to do with farming, the local authorities will have a statutory obligation to help by providing accommodation.
On Amendment No. 12, I see no point whatever in providing security of tenure to farm workers and then depriving some of them of it because their employer chooses to put them in a new cottage, That is intolerable and would inevitably result over the years in fewer workers housed by their employers being protected by the Bill. This is absolute nonsense. How could we justify a situation where a farm worker living in a cottage built three years ago was protected, but in future a farm worker living in a cottage built two years from now would not be protected?
Apart from that, where planning consent has been given after enactment of this legislation for the building of an agricultural dwelling I should have thought that the farmer's case on grounds of agricultural need, should he seek rehousing in order to use the house for an incoming agricultural worker, would be pretty strong as long as there had been no significant change in the nature of the enterprise.
If the farmer's purpose in building a new cottage on his farm was genuinely to house a worker for an enterprise for which there was a legitimate need, I should have thought that the farmer could be confident that the house would continue to make a contribution to the industry. We hope that in future local authorities will build more houses in rural areas where they are needed. Some representatives of the agriculture industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for


Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) pointed out, might be well placed to ensure that that type of housing policy is adopted more vigorously in rural areas.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the hon. Gentleman confident that, following the Chancellor's statement today and the form of words he used, the sound advice that he has given can be followed?

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: It is quite impossible.

Mr. Strang: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to enter into a debate on the precise words used by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor when he referred to the constraints on new council housebuilding. However, my right hon. Friend also said that there would be no constraints where there was real need for new housing.
It is difficult to estimate what the additional need will be. At present, two houses are required for a farm worker and an ex-farm worker. That situation will not be changed by this legislation. It is

difficult to estimate precisely what effect this measure will have on the demand and need for new council housing. At present, the local authorities have to meet the position of the farm worker and his family. The difference here is that the farm worker will not be under threat of eviction but will get the offer of accommodation from the local authority which he will be able to accept if it is suitable.

I hope hon. Members appreciate that it would be wrong to allow these amendments to be carried. If the Opposition insist on pressing them, I urge my hon. Friends to vote against them.

Mr. Pym: The Opposition are disappointed. The Minister was eloquent about his convictions, many of which we think are misguided. As we are disappointed, we shall divide the House. I ask the Opposition to support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 300.

Division No. 269.
AYES
[8.19 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Cordle, John H.
Gorst, John


Alison, Michael
Cormack, Patrick
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Costain, A. P.
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Critchley, Julian
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Awdry, Daniel
Crouch, David
Gray, Hamish


Baker, Kenneth
Crowder, F. P.
Griffiths, Eldon


Banks, Robert
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Grist, Ian


Bell, Ronald
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Grylls, Michael


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hall, Sir John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Benyon, W.
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dunlop, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Biffen, John
Durant, Tony
Hannam, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Dykes, Hugh
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Blaker, Peter
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hastings, Stephen


Body, Richard
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Havers, Sir Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Elliott, Sir William
Hawkins, Paul


Bottomley, Peter
Emery, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Eyre, Reginald
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Heseltine, Michael


Bradford, Rev Robert
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hicks, Robert


Brittan, Leon
Farr, John
Higgins, Terence L.


Brotherton, Michael
Fell, Anthony
Holland, Philip


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Hordern, Peter


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Howell, David (Guildford)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Buck, Antony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Budgen, Nick
Forman, Nigel
Hunt, John (Bromley)


Bulmer, Esmond
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Hurd, Douglas


Burden, F. A.
Fox, Marcus
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Carlisle, Mark
Fry, Peter
James, David


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)


Channon, Paul
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Jessel, Toby


Churchill, W. S.
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Jopling, Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Glyn, Dr Alan
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Clegg, Walter
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Cockcroft, John
Goodhart, Philip
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Goodhew, Victor
Kilfedder, James


Cope, John
Goodlad, Alastair
Kimball, Marcus




King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Neave, Airey
Sims, Roger


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Nelson, Anthony
Sinclair, Sir George


Kirk, Sir Peter
Neubert, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Newton, Tony
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Normanton, Tom
Speed, Keith


Knox, David
Nott, John
Spence, John


Lamont, Norman
Onslow, Cranley
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lane, David
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Osborn, John
Sproat, Iain


Lawrence, Ivan
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Stainton, Keith


Lawson, Nigel
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Le Marchant, Spencer
Paisley, Rev Ian
Stanley, John


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Parkinson, Cecil
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Percival, Ian
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Lloyd, Ian
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stokes, John


Luce, Richard
Pink, R. Bonner
Stradling, Thomas J.


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Tapsell, Peter


McCrindle, Robert
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Macfarlane, Neil
Prior, Rt Hon James
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


MacGregor, John
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Tebbit, Norman


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Raison, Timothy
Temple-Morris, Peter


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rathbone, Tim
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Madel, David
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Marten, Neil
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Trotter, Neville


Mates, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hun[...]s)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Maude, Angus
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Mawby, Ray
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Ridsdale, Julian
Wakeham, John


Mayhew, Patrick
Rifkind, Malcolm
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Mills, Peter
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wall, Patrick


Miscampbell, Norman
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Walters, Dennis


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Warren, Kenneth


Moate, Roger
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Weatherill, Bernard


Molyneaux, James
Royle, Sir Anthony
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Monro, Hector
Sainsbury, Tim
Wiggin, Jerry


Montgomery, Fergus
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Winterton, Nicholas


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Scott, Nicholas
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Morgan, Geraint
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Younger, Hon George


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)



Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Shelton, William (Streatham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Shepherd, Colin
Mr. Fred Silvester and


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Shersby, Michael
Mr. Carol Mather


Mudd, David






NOES


Abse, Leo
Canavan, Dennis
Dunn, James A.


Allaun, Frank
Cant, R. B.
Dunnett, Jack


Anderson, Donald
Carmichael, Neil
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Archer, Peter
Carter, Ray
Eadie, Alex


Armstrong, Ernest
Cartwright, John
Edge, Geoff


Ashley, Jack
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Ashton, Joe
Clemitson, Ivor
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Atkinson, Norman
Cohen, Stanley
English, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Coleman, Donald
Ennals, David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Conlan, Bernard
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Bates, Alf
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Evans, John (Newton)


Bean, R. E.
Corbett, Robin
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Beith, A.J.
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Faulds, Andrew


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Crawshaw, Richard
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cronin, John
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bishop, E. S.
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Flannery, Martin


Boardman, H.
Cryer, Bob
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dalyell, Tam
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Davidson, Arthur
Ford, Ben


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Forrester, John


Bradley, Tom
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Freeson, Reginald


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Deakins, Eric
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Buchan, Norman
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
George, Bruce


Buchanan, Richard
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Gilbert, Dr John


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Dempsey, James
Ginsburg, David


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Doig, Peter
Golding, John


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dormand, J. D.
Gould, Bryan


Campbell, Ian
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Gourlay, Harry







Graham, Ted
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Madden, Max
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton u-Lyne)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Magee, Bryan
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Grocott, Bruce
Mahon, Simon
Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Marks, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Hardy, Peter
Marquand, David
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Silverman, Julius


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Skinner, Dennis


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Small, William


Hatton, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Meacher, Michael
Snape, Peter


Heffer, Eric S.
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Hooley, Frank
Mendelson, John
Stallard, A. W.


Hooson, Emlyn
Millan, Bruce
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Horam, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stoddart, David


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Stott, Roger


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Strang, Gavin


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Moonman, Eric
Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.


Huckfield, Les
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Swain, Thomas


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Moyle, Roland
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hunter, Adam
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Newens, Stanley
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Noble, Mike
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Oakes, Gordon
Tierney, Sydney


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ogden, Eric
Tinn, James


Janner, Greville
O'Halloran, Michael
Tomlinson, John


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Orbach, Maurice
Tomney, Frank


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Torney, Tom


John, Brynmor
Ovenden, John
Urwin, T. W.


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Padley, Walter
Varley, Rt. Hon Eric G.


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Palmer, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Pardoe, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Park, George
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Judd, Frank
Parker, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Kaufman, Gerald
Parry, Robert
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Kelley, Richard
Pavitt, Laurie
Ward, Michael


Kerr, Russell
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Watkins, David


Kilroy-Sllk, Robert
Pendry, Tom
Watkinson, John


Kinnock, Neil
Penhaligon, David
Weetch, Ken


Lambie, David
Perry, Ernest
Weitzman, David


Lamborn, Harry
Phipps, Dr Colin
Wellbeloved, James


Lamond, James
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Prescott, John
White, James (Pollok)


Leadbitter, Ted
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Whitehead, Phillip


Lee, John
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitlock, William


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Radice, Giles
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Richardson, Miss Jo
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Lipton, Marcus
Robinson, Geoffrey
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Litterick, Tom
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lomas, Kenneth
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Loyden, Eddie
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Luard, Evan
Rooker, J. W.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Roper, John
Woodall, Alec


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Rose, Paul B.
Woof, Robert


McCartney, Hugh
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Young, David (Bolton E)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rowlands, Ted



McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Sandelson, Neville
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacKenzie, Gregor
Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Maclennan, Robert
Selby, Harry
Mr. Thomas Cox.


Mackintosh, John P.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Strang: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 34, line 36, leave out from 'agriculture' to end of line 6 on page 35 and insert:
'and the occupier's employer either—

(a) is the owner of the dwelling-house, or
(b) has made arrangements with the owner of the dwelling-house for it to be used as housing accommodation for persons employed by him in agriculture.

(2) In this paragraph—
employer", in relation to the occupier, means the person or, as the case may be, one of the persons by whom he is employed to work in agriculture;
owner", in relation to the dwelling-house, means the occupier's immediate landlord or, where the occupier is a licensee, the person who would be the occupier's immediate landlord if the licence were a tenancy'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we may also consider


Government Amendment No. 26 and the following amendments:
No. 14, in page 35, line 6, at end insert:
'(4)(a) This paragraph shall not apply to any person with whom the employer has made housing arrangements if such person acquired the dwelling-house or any interest therein with a view to occupying it as his residence at such time as he might retire from regular employment and

(i) either at the date of making the housing arrangements or within six months of the operative date or the date of operation for forestry workers gave notice thereof to the employer and the occupier and
(ii) a court is satisfied either that the owner has retired from regular employment and requires the dwelling-house as a residence or the person has died and the dwelling-house is required as a residence for a member of his family who was residing with him at the date of his death;
Provided that if a court is satisfied that notwithstanding the condition in sub-paragraph (i) above is not complied with the court may dispense with the requirement of that subparagraph.
(b) A person who satisfies the requirements of sub-paragraph (a) above shall be entitled to an order for possession against both the employer and worker as if he fell within Case 10A of Part II of Schedule 3 to the Rent Act 1968'.
No. 15, in page 35, line 6, at end insert:
'(4)(a) This paragraph shall not apply where the dwelling-house is let under a tenancy for a term of years certain not exceeding eight months and

(i) the dwelling-house was at some time within the period of twelve months immediately preceding the period of occupation by the qualifying worker occupied under a right to occupy if for a holiday and
(ii) the employer or the person with whom the employer has made housing arrangements gave notice in writing to the qualifying worker and the employer, as the case may be, of such circumstances not later than either the commencement of the qualifying workers occupation or the operative date or the date of operation for forestry workers;
and for the purposes of this sub-paragraph a letting shall he treated as for a term of years certain notwithstanding it is liable to determination by re-entry on the happening of any event other than the giving of notice by the landlord to determine the term;
(b) An employer or person with whom the employer has made housing arrangements satisfying the requirements of sub-paragraph (a) above shall be entitled to an order for possession against the tenant or occupier as the case may be as if he fell within Case 10B of Part II of the Rent Act 1968'.

Mr. Strang: This group contains two Government and two Opposition amend-

ments. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 defines the term—
dwelling-house in qualifying ownership
for the purposes of the Bill. As the terms of an agricultural worker's employment may make provision for his occupation of the dwelling-house, but this will not necessarily be the case, it has been necessary to devise a test to establish the link between a worker's employment and his housing, and to preclude the possibility of employers making arrangements for housing their employees either off the farm or in dwelling-houses not owned by them, and thus evading the provisions of the Bill.
To this end the Bill at present provides the test of whether the employer has housed the worker in a dwelling-house which he himself owns or in a dwelling-house owned by someone with whom he has housing arrangements. Examples of a person with whom a farmer might be likely to make such arrangements include a neighbouring farmer who happens to have a spare cottage, or a member of the farmer's family who owns property on, or in the vicinity of, the farm. The test, in the Bill as drafted, of whether housing arrangements exist is that there must be an agreement between the employer and the owner of the property whereby the owner provides housing accommodation for the employer's workers, and agrees to terminate their rights of occupation when the employer asks him to.
The drafting of the definition of "housing arrangements" at present in the Bill is defective. Courts might hold that housing arrangements, as defined, could exist only if there was a clear written agreement that the employer may direct the landlord to terminate the licence or tenancy. Alternatively the definition might be held to cover tenancies and licences over which the employer in fact had no control. Also, the present definition talks about
employed in agriculture as a whole-time worker".
This would create a loophole in the Bill, since workers whose contracts were for less than the standard number of hours would not be employed as whole-time workers, irrespective of how many hours they actually worked, and hence would not be protected by the Bill.
Amendment No. 13 removes the notion of "housing arrangements" from the definition of
dwelling-house in qualifying ownership",
and talks instead of arrangements made by the occupier's employer for the dwelling-house to be used as housing accommodation for persons employed by him in agriculture. Hence the definition will be more closely tied to the purpose for which the arrangements are made and will ensure that we include those arrangements we are trying to catch—for example, cases where the house is owned by the farmer's wife, a farming company or a neighbouring farmer.
It also talks simply of "employed in agriculture", with no reference to the number of hours worked. The qualifying worker test will, of course, ensure that only workers who have worked whole time, or as permit workers, are protected by the Bill.
Amendment No. 26 is a consequential amendment to paragraph 11(2) of the schedule. This is necessary because of the deletion of the reference to whole-time work in the definition.
It may now be best for the Opposition to speak to their amendments and for me to comment on them when I reply to the debate.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The course suggested by the Minister is probably suitable. I do not understand why the Government produced this substantial new range of amendments now instead of in Committee. It would appear that the previous definition,

(a) to provide housing accommodation for persons employed in agriculture by another person, and
(b) to terminate such licences or tenancies granted in pursuance of the arrangements",
was sufficient for their purposes. However, we on this side of the House raise no fundamental objections to the alterations the Government have made. Suffice it to say that it would be difficult to enter into an agreement with another person to evade the provisions of the Bill having regard to the length of time for which a worker must be employed in agriculture and therefore in possession of the house.
I turn to our important new amendments, which I believe could have been tabled as new clauses. My right hon.

and hon. Friends and I have tabled two substantial amendments which have not been the subject of earlier debate in any form. Both proposals come from the Rent Act 1974.
The principle of the Bill is one that we cannot support. It is clear that the Bill intends to protect the tied cottage only for the permanent agricultural worker. Unfortunately, however, there may well fall within the ambit of this Bill quite a large number of houses which one believes should not be covered by it. In particular, there is the example of the house bought by a person intending to occupy it at the time of his retirement. If somebody has bought it with a view to his retirement, under the Rent Acts the Government agreed to a specific exemption to enable a person on retirement to get his house and to get occupation of it. That provision was incorporated into the Rent Act 1974 for that specific purpose.
Amendment No. 14 provides that the paragraph shall not apply to any case where a person
acquired the dwelling-house or any interest therein with a view to occupying it as his residence at such time as he might retire from regular employment".
It goes on to lay down certain conditions where
a court is satisfied either that the owner has retired from regular employment and requires the dwelling-house as a residence or the person has died and the dwelling-house is required as a residence for a member of his family who was residing with him at the date of his death:
In that event, if the court is so satisfied, it may dispense with the requirement which would otherwise lead it to be the subject of continuing control in respect of a tied cottage. It incorporates an entitlement to an order for possession in accordance with
Case 10A of Part II of Schedule 3 to the Rent Act 1968?
I maintain that no serious intention is to be found anywhere in the Rent Act to prevent somebody from the opportunity to obtain possession his own cottage when he retires. If a retired person has bought a cotage—it will frequently be in the country—it should be available to an agricultural worker for a time and thus able to be used by the farming community. It is right that the farmer should be able to let it freely in the knowledge that at the time his own retirement


or at the retirement of the person who bought it for that purpose, possession may be obtained. I ask the Government to give serious consideration to incorporating an amendment along these lines or, if they have other views, along similar lines to ensure that on retirement a person can obtain possession.
The other major Opposition amendment raises the question of holiday lettings. In my constituency in the Isle of Thanet and in many other parts of the country many holiday lettings take place in the summer and the same premises are also used for winter lettings. Thanks to the amendments which, in the end, we extracted from the Government, special exemptions exist under the Rent Acts to enable premises to be recovered in these circumstances. It was felt right that one did not need to pursue doctrinal influences to the ultimate Socialist degree to ensure that people could be protected in respect of holiday lettings.
Likewise, in Amendment No. 15 my right hon. Friend and I seek to obtain a special exemption for tenancies within the ambit of what was Case 10B of Part II of the Rent Act 1968 and where they were let in accordance with the provisions of the 1974 Act to enable them to be recovered under Case 10B. Someone may decide that the dwelling-house shall be let for a term not exceeding eight months. When it was let for some time within a period of 12 months immediately before that for a holiday purpose, it qualified under the Rent Acts. We ask that this same qualification be incorporated into this Bill.
8.45 p.m.
There are many ways in which the Government could have dealt with the position of the tied cottage. In the end they decided to make this Bill almost identical with the Rent Acts, incorporating large parts of those Acts and adapting them for this purpose. We therefore see no reason, in view of the abundant precedent, to include the provisions relating to people who retire and those who let premises for holiday purposes, thus excluding them from the operation of the Bill.
I should be grateful for the attention of one or other of the Ministers. I hope that their deliberations are so favourable that I shall be able to get my amend-

ments on the nod. If that is what they are deciding, there is an open door. I am prepared to resume my seat forthwith. But if not, I want to make the point plain.
As I said, this is entirely new ground. There has been gradual recognition that the Bill is in danger of trespassing into a far wider field than the Government intended. They could not have intended to ensure that someone who has bought a property to use for his retirement or who wants to let premises for part of the year for use by agricultural workers should not be able to do so. One hopes that they will therefore consider both amendments seriously.
Having said that they wanted to prevent any agreement to evade the legislation, the Government provide in Amendment No. 13 that the farmer cannot evade the arrangement by making an agreement with another person. I do not believe that if someone wished to enter into arrangements with a wide range of workers, he would not be able to do so, but the Government undertook in Committee to look carefully at these matters.
Another such consideration concerns workers in hostels. I want to be sure that the Government's amendments do not cover arrangements by a farmer to house workers in a hostel used for that purpose, or similar arrangements. The Government have not implemented their undertaking to table amendments to ensure that such hostel accommodation would not come within the ambit of the Bill.
It would be very damaging if hostels used for providing proper accommodation for farm workers turned out to be protected as though they were tied cottages, which clearly they were not designed to be. I hope that the Government will assure us that these provisions do not cover such accommodation.
At the same time, perhaps they could explain why they have not suggested amendments to cover that aspect. We raise the point with them. I hope that they will be able to give a considered reply to our contention that action should be carefully limited to agricultural workers in acknowledged tied cottages, and that others should be exempt from these provisions.

Mr. Strang: I am sorry to have to start by informing the hon. Gentleman that we cannot accept any of these amendments. However, the reasons are quite different and it might be helpful if I were to explain that Amendment No. 14 is unnecessary since Case 12 in Schedule 3 covers the same ground.
If the owner of a house subject to housing arrangements can prove the grounds set out in Case 12—basically, that he bought the house as a future retirement home, or that the previous owner who was a member of his family did so and had died and the requisite notices have been served, or the court is satisfied that it is just and equitable to dispense with the notice requirements—the court must make an order for possession. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured if I make absolutely clear that we have embodied in the Bill the provision which he has rightly explained already exists in the Rent Act, namely, that if someone has bought a house for the purpose of retirement, that person is able to secure vacant possession when desiring to do so.
Amendment No. 15 seeks to provide basically that a landlord may throw out a genuine farm worker who satisfies the test simply because he has used the house as a holiday home and wished to do so again. This is totally unacceptable and if hon. Gentlemen will carefully consider the effect, I feel sure they will come to the same conclusion.
A farmer should not be able to throw out an ex-worker simply so that he can obtain a higher income by letting the cottage as a holiday home. The hon. Gentleman who tabled this amendment presumably believes a farmer should be able to move ex-workers from cottages into holiday cottages and throw them out altogether when he obtains an order for possession. This runs directly counter to the whole purpose of the Bill, which is to ensure that genuine farm workers as tenants should not be threatened with eviction.
If there is agricultural need for a cottage for a replacement worker and a farmer has available no accommodation other than holiday cottages, he may apply to the local authority to rehouse the worker. Hence, there is no reason, let alone justice, behind this amendment,

and I must advise hon. Members to reject it if it is pressed.
The hon. Member raised the subject of hostels. Such hostels are excluded from the scope of the Bill in any event, because hostel inhabitants can in no way claim exclusive occupancy of any part of the dwelling-house. There may still be a residual problem, which the hon. Gentleman fairly raised. We shall certainly be happy to look further at this and I can assure him—and he has the advantage of a legal background—that this is a complex question. A layman, understandably, would find it easy to see an extreme difference between a hostel and a cottage, but there may well be situations coming somewhere between where it is harder to draw the line. If the hon. Gentleman feels it helpful, I can assure him that we are continuing consideration of this matter and perhaps we can help by writing to him when we have reached the end of our consideration.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Can the Minister give a clear undertaking on behalf of the Government that they will at least do something about this matter in another place?

Mr. Strang: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that if it is necessary to clarify the position later, we shall do so. I cannot go further at this stage. I should like to continue our consultations and perhaps in due course I can inform the hon. Gentleman of our decision.
I hope that I have given the hon. and learned Gentleman certain assurances in regard to the person who genuinely wants to retire into a cottage bought for that purpose. He will have the same protection as under the Rent Act.
We cannot accept the other amendment, and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw it.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am happy with the Government assurance on Amendment No. 14. I agree that there are many complex legal aspects, but I accept the undertaking that they are sufficiently covered.
I must take issue with the Minister on one aspect of holiday accommodation. If he wishes to ensure that holiday lettings are within the scope of the Bill, it is plain that where an employer or other


person has made housing arrangements, he should give notice in writing to the qualifying worker or the employer, as the case made be, not later than the commencement of the occupation, or the operative date, or the date of the operation in regard to forestry workers, that the letting is to be treated as being outside the legislation. Let us be clear that the worker would be fully aware of the limitations imposed on a holiday letting.
Nevertheless, it is not a matter that we wish to press further. It is another of the instances that can be looked at in another place to ensure that it will not cut across the existing provisions enabling people to engage in holiday lettings.
The Minister's observations on Government Amendment No. 13 show that the situation is in order subject only to the difficulty involving hostel workers. The Government have said that they will do their best to deal with that position in due course.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Strang: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 35, line 12, leave out from 'which' to end of line 13 and insert:

'(a) he is employed to work in agriculture, and
(b) the number of hours for which he works in agriculture, or in activities incidental to agriculture, for the person or persons by whom he is so employed is not less than the standard number of hours'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I understand that with this amendment it is also convenient to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 21 and 27.

Mr. Strang: The amendments in this group seek to improve the qualification requirements in Schedule 2 so that they take account of one of the facts of agriculture.
Those hon. Members familiar with farming will be well aware that most agricultural workers, even very highly specialised ones, will often spend some of their time on activities which, whilst not strictly agricultural as we have defined it, are incidental to the conduct of agriculture. I am thinking for example of the stockman who, one day a week at certain times of the year, will drive his pigs to market, or of the tractor driver

who also maintains farm machinery. No one would suggest that lorry driving or mechanical engineering if done full time were agricultural activities, but it is another matter where they form part and parcel of a farmer's job. The same type of considerations apply to forestry.
In the Bill, as drafted however, whole-time employment in agriculture is defined as work for the standard number of hours in agriculture, and there is a significant risk here that some workers who are covered by the Agricultural Wages Act and whom we intended to cover in this Bill would not be covered because their genuine agricultural work fell below the Standard number of hours. The amendments therefore provide that an agricultural worker will still be regarded as a whole-time worker in agriculture for the purposes of the Bill even where incidental duties occupy a part of his working week. It is important that there should always be a core of work which is truly agricultural, and reference to a contract of employment in agriculture introduced by Amendment No. 29 should ensure that this core is present.
9.0 p.m.
I should finally like to stress that these incidental duties must have an agricultural connotation. There is no question of going outside what is generally recognised as agricultural employment and bringing within the Bill people who are employed predominantly or exclusively in other work—for example in tourism or catering—where there is nothing agricultural about the work, except its environment.
In the last analysis, questions on the scope of the definition of agriculture would be matters for the courts, but we do not envisage that the flexible and commonsense approach which I have outlined is likely to cause any significant problems.

Mr. Jopling: We are grateful to the Minister for explaining the meaning of the group of amendments, but we are not entirely happy. The new definition is too vague. The first problem that has occurred to us is that of the position of the casual worker. The amendments seem to include within the definition of casual worker the person who goes to a farm for a limited period of time,
is employed to work in agriculture


under the definition in paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 16, and who works for a week or perhaps two for not less than the standard number of hours. It seems to us that that person would establish himself as someone who worked full-time in agriculture.
I do not have any particular quarrel with that, but the Bill appears to extend the definition of a full-time worker in agriculture to a casual worker who might only be on a farm for a week helping with sheep-shearing, for example, in the summer months. There is a danger that that person, because he qualified under the definition as a person who worked full time in agriculture, might slip into benefiting from some of the advantages which the Bill would bestow upon him.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary set our minds at rest on that matter? Am I right in suggesting that within the definition in Amendment No. 16 a casual worker who works on the farm for only one full week will qualify as a full-time worker? If that is so, is the Minister sure that a person of that sort could not qualify for many of the other benefits which would be totally unreasonable for us to allow under the Bill?
Another aspect of these amendments also concerns us. It is the matter which the Parliamentary Secretary has just explained to the House. Our concern is about the definition summed up in the words "activities incidental to agriculture". We are not sure what they mean. We see that it may have been necessary for the Government to introduce amendments to make sure that the Bill covered the two cases which the hon. Gentleman described—the case of the stockman who goes to market one day a week and drives the lorry there and back, and the case of the tractor driver who may spend half a day a week maintaining the tractors or the equipment. It might be held that because they were not fully employed permanently on purely agricultural work, they could slip out of the net of the Bill. I do not think that we quarrel with that point too much.
We also quite understand, at the other end of the scale, that there are other jobs which do not come within the description of "activities incidental to agriculture". The hon. Gentleman gave the

examples of catering and tourism. But between those two extremes there is the problem of a whole number of other jobs that might come into question over these matters.
For example, there are maintenance workers who may be employed on farms, working as builders or joiners, erecting new building structures or new farm gates. There is the case of the lorry driver, when we think it would be quite wrong to include if he clearly spends most of his time driving the produce of other farms and other businesses ancillary to farming. On a number of farms, a lorry is part of the equipment but spends part of its time carrying the produce of that farm and the other part carrying the produce of other farms.
Again, I can think of instances where a farmer has an ancillary business connected with his farm. We are all aware of farmers who have opened farm shops to sell their produce. I know of one farmer, who lives close to me in Yorkshire, who runs a seed business in conjunction with his farm. We all know farmers who have feeding stuffs businesses run in conjunction with their farms.
We have not been able to find any precedent for this definition "activities incidental to agriculture". This anxiety has been raised with us by the NFU, which says that the expression is vague and not one which it has come across in agricultural legislation before, which invariably refers, as does the Agricultural Wages Act, simply to "employment in agriculture".
There is a great problem here. Under the definition of the Agricultural Wages Act 1948, those who qualify under this part of the Bill for this benefit have to come within that Act. There is plenty of case law on the workings of the Act. It protects those who spend most of their time in farm work rather than ancillary jobs. This is what the Parliamentary Secretary is driving at. It is his purpose to have an assurance within the Bill so that people who spend most of their time in farm work rather than ancillary jobs can be covered. This will cover the stockman who drives animals to market once a week, and the tractor driver who spends time each week on maintenance and repairs.
We believe that this definition could bring into the Bill people who work a minimum of time in agriculture and a maximum of time in ancillary activities. It would be totally wrong to include among those who benefit from the legislation people like the pure maintenance worker, the lorry driver, and those who work in businesses ancillary to the farm such as the farm shop, the seed business and the feeding stuff business.
The National Farmers Union is also anxious about this matter. I quote a part of a letter from the Director-General in which he claims that his union is unable to understand the interpretation of the amendment:
It could have the effect of bringing within the ambit of the Bill a person who was employed in farm work for a small part of the working week, and who was engaged for the rest of the time on 'incidental activities'. I am thinking, in this context, of estate keepers, gamekeepers or gardeners who might be involved in a limited amount of farm work during the working week.
I do not believe that the Parliamentary Secretary covered this point in his opening remarks and we want to hear from him on this matter when he replies to the debate.

Mr. Peter Mills: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting the case so well, I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this matter because it gives me a chance to say something which should be said.
The Minister talks about other jobs being done by agricultural workers. In other words, agricultural workers are flexible. They do agricultural work and other jobs such as repairs and lorry driving. We should pay tribute to them for being so flexible and being prepared to do so many different jobs on the farm.
I have been a farm worker, and I have been associated with farm workers for many years. I believe that the British farm worker is an object lesson to other sections of industry in this country in that he is prepared, without the problems of unions or demarcation lines, to turn his hand to a whole variety of jobs. He is not worried about doing something different from what he does in the normal course of his duties. Not many people are prepared to change as quickly as farm workers, and few people in this country possess such a wide range of skills.
9.15 p.m.
I was on my farm the other day watching the driver of the combine harvester who, instead of calling in the agricultural mechanics, was changing a very complicated bearing on the machine. That man has been a skilled agricultural worker all his working life but he knows enough to change a complicated bearing without calling in the engineers. He wanted to do the job for his own sake because he wanted to get on with the work, and he was also helping us out.
Farm workers are prepared to do a variety of jobs which are not always strictly agricultural, and we should pay tribute to them for that. It seems a pity that the Government should insist upon this sort of legislation, which seems to divide people and which prompts amendments of this nature.
If the NFU is concerned about this matter, it must be cleared up and we must have a far better explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary before the Bill is allowed to go through. It is certainly important to get the matter right now, not only for us but for farm workers and farmers. I am unhappy about the proposals. Farm workers are an object lesson to many other workers. The Minister must make the matter clear.

Mr. Charles Morrison: My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) dealt extremely well with the amendment. The longer he spoke, the more worried I became. I fear that the Minister and his advisers have not thought fully about the drafting of this part of the Bill. The amendments demonstrate just how monstrous it is that our discussions should be curtailed by the guillotine. That means that there is inadequate time to argue about legislation which is complicated and on which it is difficult to be certain of the consequences. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give a far more satisfactory reply.

Mr. Strang: I can assure the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) that we do not envisage casual workers being covered by the Bill. In order to be covered, they first have to have a contract of employment for a specified number of not less than 35 hours, and they must also have exclusive occupancy of an agricultural tied cottage. The hon. Gentleman will agree that in practice that


will effectively exclude the casual workers whom he had in mind. It also excludes the part-time workers.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) took the opportunity to acknowledge just how skilled and flexible agricultural workers are. There is no question but that agricultural workers as a group represent a higly skilled section of the British labour force. It is a great pity that there should still be such a gap between the average earnings of these skilled workers and their counterparts in manufacturing industry.
The whole purpose of the amendment is to make sure that these workers will get the benefits of the Bill. We wish to make absolutely sure that the coverage in the Bill will not leave a loophole whereby a worker who is an agricultural worker for all practical purposes but who does an element of other work which is incidental to agriculture will not be covered by the Bill.
The view has been taken by Opposition Members that we do not want to drive a wedge between agricultural workers who do other duties incidental to agriculture and the full-time stockman or tractor driver. The central purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the very workers to whom the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) referred are covered. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), we envisage that a large proportion of the estate workers about whom she is concerned will be covered by the Bill. Many estate workers are in practice doing agricultural work as well, but where a worker is engaged full-time in an occupation which is not agricultural, where by normal definition and understanding he is a full-time mechanic or a full-time estate worker, he is not covered by the Bill.

Mr. Peter Mills: If that is so clear, or if it is as clear as the hon. Gentleman appears to think, how is it that it is not appreciated by the National Farmers' Union?

Mr. Strang: I think that the NFU wants to restrict the coverage of the Bill. If it has any interpretation problems, we shall be happy to discuss the Bill with it.

One of the good features about the drafting and the passage of this legislation through Parliament to date has been the good relationship we have managed to retain with all the representative agricultural organisations. The CLA and the NFU have had their disagreements with us, and even the NUAAW would like to alter parts of the Bill in a small way, but to date we have had a friendly and reasonable dialogue with all these organisations on this legislation.

Mr. Charles Morrison: It is interesting that the NFU is concerned about this matter, but what matters much more than the NFU in this context is the interpretation that the courts may put on this part of the Bill. The Minister is giving us his opinion, but he knows as well as I do that that may be completely worthless.

Mr. Strang: I have endeavoured to explain the coverage of the Bill as it will be on the assumption that the amendment is carried. I have put it in layman's terms. However, at the end of the day, in the same way as the coverage of other agricultural legislation has to be clarified in court, there may well be occasions when this legislation is tested in court. We are achieving—

Mr. Jopling: I believe that the House is finding it difficult to follow what is in the Minister's mind. We must find out what the Government want and then try to ascertain whether the Bill endorses their thinking. What balance is the hon. Gentleman aiming at when, for example, a person drives a tractor full-time and carries cut maintenance on it full-time, or where a person drives a lorry and does part-time work on the farm as well? That is what we want to know. Is he aiming at 50 per cent. or 70 per cent. farm work and 30 per cent. incidental work? I think he must put a figure before us so that we can examine the Bill more critically to ascertain whether the Government have written into the Bill what they want to do.

Mr. Strang: I do not think that I could put a figure on it. The hon. Gentleman refers to a tractor driver who spends some time driving the tractor, some time maintaining it and some time working as a mechanical engineer for the farm. As


far as I am concerned, that man is covered by the legislation. It would be a scandal if he were not so covered.

Mr. Jopling: Will the Minister consider the case of a farmer who, in association with his farms, has an agricultural repair business and has a man who works partly on maintaining the farms' tractors and partly on tractors from outside? Will he consider also the case of a farmer with a seed business and a worker who spends some time selling seeds to the local community and some time working on the farm? Perhaps they are better examples.
The Minister must tell us what sort of split he is considering between farm and incidental work. Is it fifty-fifty, one-third to two-thirds? If he does not tell us, we shall be forced to the conclusion that the Government are groping along in the dark.

Mr. Strang: I cannot put a figure on it. The hon. Gentleman quoted the example of a man who spent some time driving and some time maintaining his tractor. That is not comparable with the time spent by a man working for a farmer's business. It depends on the nature of the work being done by the worker, what farm work he is doing and the nature of his other work. The hon. Gentleman described a worker who was clearly an agricultural engineer, who maintained and repaired the equipment of an agricultural engineering business. He would not be covered by the Bill.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Would not the Minister agree that the answer depends on the employer? If a farmer has a new tractor, a worker need spend only about one day a year on maintenance work. When a farmer has, as I have, a 20-year-old tractor, maintenance work can total 20 days a year.

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point, although we could take this matter too far. It reminds me of the farmer in the North of Scotland who met an oil man who said "I come from the United States, where we have big farms. It takes me a whole day to drive round my farm." The Scotsman replied "I used to have a car like that, but I have since got a new one."
We must leave time for important later amendments. I merely say now that we

intend to get complete coverage of agricultural workers which includes those doing estate, maintenance or engineering work which is incidental to agricultural work.

Mr. Jopling: I have not been very satisfied with this debate. We still do not know what is in the Government's mind. I shoud have been tempted to divide the House were it not for the fact that this Bill is under a guillotine and we want to make a little more progress.
I must reluctantly ask my hon. Friends to accept the amendment, although I do not know what the Liberal Party intends to do. If the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) is having trouble with his tractor, he might do well to sell his Rolls-Royce and buy a better tractor.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I do not have a Rolls-Royce; I have a 20-year-old Ferguson tractor and a new tractor.
We are now discussing matters which are not as important as Clause 29. We should make speedier progress to that clause, which is the guts of the Bill.

Mr. Jopling: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why I suggest that we should not divide the House on this amendment, although we feel very strongly about it. In the circumstances, I have nothing more to say.

Amendment agreed to.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Strang: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 35, line 16, leave out
'(a) where he has only one employer'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this it will be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 18 and 20.

Mr. Strang: Amendment No. 17 removes the words
where he has only one employer".
It is simply a drafting amendment. The words are redundant.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 20 make provision for weeks or part weeks absent from work with the consent of the employer, or employers, to count towards the qualifying period. The first applies this new provision for whole-time workers and the second for permit workers.
In looking again at the whole area of employment, we realised that, whilst we had provided in the Bill for agreed holidays and periods of sickness to count as whole-time work towards the qualifying period, we had made no provision for other periods of absence from work by mutual consent between the farmer and his worker to count, with the result that, for example, a worker wanting to benefit from a training course for which his employer was perfectly willing to release him might be deterred from taking up such training in case he forfeited or delayed his qualification for protection under the Bill.
The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) earlier disappointingly said that he welcomed that two-thirds of agricultural workers were not in the union.

Mr. Peter Mills: My hon. Friend did not say that.

Mr. Strang: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that he did. However, it is not the case that the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers has only a third of all agricultural workers in England and Wales in its membership. We believe that workers should be encouraged to join their appropriate trade unions. I hope that one incidental development of this legislation will be that more agricultural workers will join their appropriate trade unions.
I find it surprising that some Opposition Members should think it right to support the idea that farmers should belong to the NFU, but resent the idea that agricultural workers should belong to the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, or the Transport and General Workers Union. One of the incidental effects of the amendments will be that, where a worker with the consent of his employer is away on a training course or on legitimate trade union activities, he will not be penalised, but will still be able to notch up his qualifying time for coverage by the Bill.
These amendments will allow any absences agreed between employer and employee to count as whole-time work for the purposes of calculating the qualifying period for whole-time and permit workers respectively. Such provision is in the interests of both workers and

farmers who are interested in getting and keeping good staff. I hope that the House will accept the amendments.

Mr. Peter Mills: I think that we must correct the impression given by the Parliamentary Secretary about the attitude of farmers to unions. It is certainly not my attitude. Many farmers are concerned about the attitude of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), who is not in her place, and the kind of language that she used. If what she said represented the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, I should not advise my farm workers and others to join it.
Thank goodness, not every union official in that organisation takes the same attitude as the hon. Lady, who talked about hearts bleeding for wicked farmers. Remarks of that kind serve only to drive a wedge between the good relationships between farmers and farm workers. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to be careful about what he says, because not all of us agree with his views or take that attitude towards unions.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 35, line 25, at end insert—
'( ) absent from work in agriculture with the consent of his employer or, where he has two or more employers, with the consent of the employer or employers concerned, or'.—[Mr. Strang.]

Mr. Strang: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 35, line 39, after 'employee', insert:
'for the whole or part of the week'.
This is a drafting amendment to correct what is effectively a slight omission.
The Bill as drafted is silent on the question of hours worked by permit workers, whose employment in agriculture has, as I made clear in Committee, certain special features in that, because of some physical or mental disability, they are awarded permits certifying that they are incapable of normal whole-time work. We thought it right, however, to spell out the fact that a week of work by a permit worker will count towards the qualifying period irrespective of the number of hours involved, since that criterion of whole-time work is irrelevant to the special circumstances of permit workers.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 35, line 45, at end insert—
'( ) absent from work in agriculture with the consent of his employer or, where he has two or more employers, with the consent of the employer or employers concerned, or'.

No. 21, in page 36, line 15, after 'agriculture', insert:
'or in activities incidental to agriculture'.

No. 22, in page 36, leave out lines 21 to 33.

No. 26, in page 37, line 5, leave out from 'disease' to end of line 6.

No. 27, in page 37, line 18, after 'forestry', insert
'or in activities incidental to forestry'.

No. 28, in page 37, leave out line 19.

No. 29, in page 37, line 23, at end insert—

'PART III

SUPPLEMENTAL

13.—(1) In this Schedule "employment" means employment under one or more contracts of employment, and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.

(2) For the purposes of the definition in sub-paragraph (1) above "contract of employment" means a contract of employment or apprenticeship (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing).

14.—(1) In this Schedule "the standard number of hours" means 35 hours or such other number of hours as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food acting jointly.

(2) An order under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(3) An order under this paragraph may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order so made.

15. Any reference in this Schedule to work in agriculture or in forestry, or to employment in agriculture or in forestry, is a reference to such work, or such employment, in the United Kingdom (including the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) or in the territory of any other State which is a member of the European Economic Community.'—[Mr. Strang.]

Clause 2

MEANING OF "RELEVANT LICENCE" AND "RELEVANT TENANCY"

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 2, line 35, after 'dwelling-house', insert'

'other than a dwelling-house occupied by a person or persons employed in farming operations as seasonal workers'.
We regard this as an important amendment. It is similar to one we moved in Committee, on which there was a Division and on which the Committee divided evenly. It was negatived solely, in accordance with precedent, by the casting vote of the Chairman. Therefore, it is a matter upon which there is a fair balance of opinion.
The amendment is directed to Clause 2, which seeks to define a dwelling-house which is the subject matter of the Bill and which may become subject to a protected tenancy and eventually to a statutory tenancy as a result of the measures contained in the Bill.
We seek to qualify the definition of "dwelling-house" by excluding from the definition any dwelling-house occupied by persons who are engaged as seasonal workers in farming operations. I should like to explain the reason. Many farmers employ seasonal workers to carry out seasonal operations. Fruit-picking is an obvious example. Farmers keep accommodation available for such seasonal workers, and when the workers finish work on the farm in question they move on to another farm and do something else appropriate to the season.
In Committee it emerged from statements made by many of my hon. Friends who have practical knowledge of farmers and who themselves farm that it is important that there should be this mobile force of workers moving around the country to carry out seasonal farming operations. It is also important that farmers should be able to keep accommodation available for them. It became clear during our discussions that these mobile workers were in the main single young people who would not normally qualify to be rehoused by any local authority under the majority of housing and points schemes operated by local authorities.
The fear expressed in Committee was that unless the qualification contained in the amendment were included in the Bill young single people could use the Bill as a short cut to local authority accommodation. They could obtain jobs as seasonal workers, move around the country and ultimately, after fulfilling the requisite number of days in the requisite


number of years, finally lodge in accommodation from which the farmer could not remove them because they would have become qualified workers. The farmer would have to apply to the advisory committee, which would give the necessary certificate, and the workers concerned would immediately become qualified to apply for local authority housing. That was one aspect of the measure that gave the Government considerable anxiety. In their consultative document they said that they were anxious not to allow the Bill to be used as an easy way into local authority accommodation.
We are considering a particular class of people who would normally be excluded from local authority accommodation. There will be a temptation for them to use the Bill as a means of acquiring local authority accommodation. The Bill will simply become a vehicle for that purpose, because the Government have imposed upon local authorities a duty to use best endeavours to rehouse any occupants of a tied cottage that the advisory committee certifies is required by the farmer for the purpose of the efficient running of his farm.
In the interval which has elapsed since the matter was raised in Committee, the Minister will have had an opportunity to study carefully the remarks of my hon. Friends who have deep practical knowledge of the way in which the farming industry works, the way in which seasonal workers are used; the way in which they move around and the way in which they can become qualified as qualifying workers under the Bill. Having had that time for reflection, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment, upon which the Committee was evenly divided.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Strang: As the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) reminded us, we had a long debate in Committee on an identically-worded amendment. Hon. Members then expressed fears that seasonal workers moving around the country to do short-term jobs as and when the need arose could conceivably clock up 91 weeks' qualifying work in two years. While I accept that that is feasible, we took the view that it was unlikely.
However, we have now made an amendment, No. 29, which specifies that

work in agriculture must be done under one or more contracts of employment amounting to the standard number of hours. The hon. Gentleman had suggested in Committee that there was a case for including the concept of a contract of employment. We carefully considered the matter and agreed that to introduce the contract of employment was a helpful way of getting round the difficulties. It is most unusual for a seasonal worker to be given such a contract rather than a contract for services.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the young single worker who moved around the country. We are not familiar with such workers in Scotland, but I gather that there are some in England. The hon. Gentleman said that such workers, who are not eligible for the housing lists in most local authority areas, might be able to use the Bill as the means of obtaining a house. It is hard to imagine that any farmer would unwittingly take on such a worker under a contract which would enable him to qualify and give him accommodation of which he had exclusive occupation. I hope that, in the light of these formidable hurdles to prevent seasonal workers from becoming protected occupiers, the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw the amendment.
In any case, it would be difficult to accept an amendment with the word "seasonal" in it, particularly in the context of agriculture. The term is undefined, and it is difficult to obtain a satisfactory form of words. However, I think the Opposition will accept that, now that we have introduced the idea of a contract of employment, there is no risk that seasonal workers will be able to use the Bill as a means of securing occupation and the right to remain in a cottage when the farmer does not want them there.

Mr. Peter Mills: I am not sure that we can accept what the Parliamentary Secretary said as easily as that. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) raised a very important point. I was not on the Committee and therefore did not have the privilege of hearing all the arguments there, but I am not convinced by what the hon. Gentleman said tonight, because there is a growing number of seasonal or contract workers who are moving about the country doing specific jobs.
As agriculture becomes more and more complicated, with the use of more and more machinery, and as it becomes more difficult to employ a man all the year round, I think that we shall see much larger groups of seasonal or contract workers. This is certainly happening on my own farms. Hay and straw baling after the combining is all done by people from outside. In that way we have extra workers and machinery when they are needed and do not have to keep them the whole year. The pulling of swedes under contract is now a big enterprise in the South-West. For all the people involved, including students and others, good accommodation must be provided.
We should have a rather more definite assurance from the Minister, particularly in view of the current trend in agriculture.

Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) for his fresh approach to the matter and the new light he has thrown upon it. The Minister will recollect that when we came to Amendment No. 29 we moved on very rapidly to suit the convenience of the House. However, I threw him a question about whether Amendment No. 29 covered the problem we discussed in Committee in respect of seasonal and casual workers.
We are now discussing Amendment No. 30 and the Minister assures me that the object of Government Amendment No. 29 is indeed to meet the objections that we raised in Committee and that we are now repeating. Having heard the Minister's assurance, I was quite prepared to respond to his invitation and withdraw the Opposition amendment. But my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West has now placed me in a certain amount of doubt because he spoke of seasonal workers as "contract workers".
To what extent is a worker known as a "contract worker" in the agricultural industry? That is the immediate problem which comes to my mind if my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West is accurate in speaking of these workers as contract workers. Perhaps we may find ourselves in a situation where, contrary to the advice which the Minister has just given, Amendment No. 29 does not meet our difficulty.

Mr. Strang: I shall be happy to look at this, but on the advice that we have obtained those workers to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring will not have a contract of employment as defined in the Bill. I am happy to look at this point and to write to the hon. Gentleman. There is nothing between us in our intention that we do not want the typical seasonal worker to be able to qualify for security of tenure on the basis of the Bill.

Mr. Rossi: I am most grateful to the Minister. It is clear that both sides of the House are agreed in principle about what we mean. It now becomes purely a matter of drafting. If the hon. Gentleman would be so kind as to write to me, perhaps the matter could be raised in another place at a later date. On that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Armstrong: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 3, line 11 leave out 'applied by subsection (1) above' and insert
'relevant for the purposes of the definitions in subsection (1) above, and which are accordingly applied by that subsection'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendment No. 32.

Mr. Armstrong: I undertook in Committee to see whether it was possible to make this subsection a little clearer and these amendments are intended to fulfil that aim. They apply to Clause 2(2) which is a provision designed rather to assist the reader of the Bill than to have a substantive effect on the clause.
Clause 2(1) defines "relevant licence" and "relevant tenancy" by reference to what would be a protected tenancy under the Rent Act 1968, disregarding the level of rent and the fact that the dwelling-house is part of an agricultural holding. Clause 2(2) acts as a pointer, indicating to the reader which sections of the 1968 Act he should read in applying the test under subsection (1); but it is not meant as an exhaustive list of all the sections which are thus applied.
With that explanation I trust that hon. Gentlemen will be disposed to accept the amendments.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: It was in response to the doubts that I expressed in Committee about the meaning of this clause that the amendments have been introduced, and I am most grateful to my hon. Friend.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 32, in page 3, line 21 at end insert—
'section 6 (rateable value and appropriate day)'.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Clause 4

PROTECTED OCCUPIERS BY SUCCESSION

Mr. Awdry: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 4, line 42, leave out 'members of his family' and insert:
a grandchild looking after him, a child, or grand-parent'.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 34, in page 4, line 44, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.

Mr. Awdry: Clause 4 deals with protection for occupiers by succession and provides that protection shall be extended to a surviving spouse residing with the deceased at the date of death, or one or more persons who are members of his family residing with the occupier at the time of his death and for a period of six months before his death.
We entirely accept that the surviving spouse should be protected. There is no argument about that. It is a fundamental right which must be extended to the surviving spouse if the whole principle of portected occupancies is to become part of the law. But we feel that the extension to members of the family as proposed in the Bill goes too far.
This provision may be appropriate—I think it is—to the general field of the Rent Act law, but we are not dealing with that whole field tonight. We are dealing here with the special case of agriculture and the whole relationship between employer and employee.
One of our difficulties in Committee arose from the fact that the Government have modelled the Bill on the existing Rent Acts. I do not think that they yet understand that that approach will lead to great difficulties for the farming indus-

try. In Committee we tried to limit the protection to a child or children of the original occupier. In another amendment we sought to limit the protection to members of the family who had lived in the house for at least two years. We tried to strike a balance between humanity and agricultural efficiency. That is the principle behind these two amendments.
In Committee the Minister said that our amendments would shift the balance which had proved over the years to be fair. He argued that the existing law should apply to these provisions. He said:
I understand that Megarry on the Rent Acts, which is the absolute authority, speaking of succession and family, states:
The test to be applied is whether an ordinary man would have regarded the person as a member of the tenant's family … by the application of a broad, commonsense, man-of-the-world view.'
The amendments would shift a balance which experience over the years has proved to work well, to be fair, and to he in the interests of those who quite genuinely have been members of a family."—[Official Report, Standing Committee K, 27th May 1976; c. 152.]
As the House may know, the expression "members of the family" has been widely interpreted over the years by the courts, and includes relatives who can be very distant relatives of the deceased. Amendment No. 33 is a compromise. Instead of including, as we did before, only a child or children—perhaps, on reflection, that was a little too narrow—we now seek to include a grandchild looking after the original occupier, a child or children and a grandparent. We therefore seek to include all the close family of the farm worker.
After much thought, we feel that this compromise achieves a fair balance between the farm workers family and the farmer. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 33—to produce a fair and equitable balance between the interests of the worker and those of the farmer who needs the cottage.
Amendment No. 34 seeks to provide that only members of the family who have lived in the cottage for at least a year will be included. Last time we tried to make the period two years. Again, this is a compromise. We seek to prevent members of the family of a farm worker who may not be close relations from moving into a house when the occupier's


death is foreseen—there are circumstances in which one must accept that this will happen—to claim protection under the Bill.
I ant not suggesting that this will happen frequently, but at this time of great housing shortage it is not inconceivable that relatives might move in to take advantage of these provisions, to the detriment of the farmer—and, incidentally, jumping the queue.
I do not know whether the House understands how greatly the Bill alters the whole concept of the law regarding agricultural cottages. I have practised in this field for many years as a solicitor and I am certain that farmers in the West Country, or anywhere else, do not realise the immense changes that the Bill will make. They have not had a chance to read the Bill. It has not been much discussed in the House as a whole. We are anxious to make the Bill as practical and as acceptable as possible to farmers, because it has to work. Our approach in this amendment is essentially practical— to try to make it acceptable so that it will not cause unnecessary problems.
10.0 p.m.
If distant relatives such as cousins or nephews can move into cottages and then claim protection, they will cause great resentment and hardship to farmers who may have urgent need of the accommodation for agricultural workers. If, alas, a farm worker becomes seriously ill, perhaps with cancer or something of the kind, of course his wife and the grandchild who looks after him must be protected, as must the grandparents. But is it right that a distant relative, who has nothing to do with the farm, but sees the situation and moves into the cottage, should be able to claim the total protection given by the Bill, thus preventing the farmer from getting the cottage?

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify the effects of Amendment No. 33? The wording of Clause 4(3) at present reads:
Where—

(a) the original occupier was not a person who died leaving a surviving spouse who was residing with him at his death, but
(b) one or more persons who were members of his family were residing with him at the time of and for the period of six months immediately before his death, …".
Then protection arises.
If the amendment is carried, the sub section will read:
one or more persons who were a grandchild looking after him, a child, or grand-parent",
which would leave out, for example a parent, sister or brother, many other close relatives and a common law wife. All these people would be excluded. Can the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) explain the reason for selecting these particular relationships rather than many of the others? I take his point, but I find it very difficult to understand his reason for selecting these particular relationships.

Mr. Awdry: We have tried to include in our amendment those who are close members of a family who, we think, are most appropriate to get protection under the Bill. We have included child, children, grandparent and the grandchild who is looking after the occupier. This seems to us to be a reasonable and sensible approach. We are seeking to provide that distant relatives not connected with the family should not be able, by virtue of the provisions of the Bill, to come in and claim protection in the situation I have tried to outline to the House, which would produce great hardship to farmers. We are seeking to strike a fair balance between the needs of efficient agriculture on the one hand and humanity for the dependant of the occupier who has died on the other hand.
These amendments, which are a compromise between the two we moved in Committee, make the point admirably. I hope that there will be a major debate on this issue, because it is one of profound importance. It is intended to make this a good Bill and one which will work in practice. That is the basis of these amendments, and I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends will support them.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I find myself extremely puzzled by the amendment. As I understand it, the position is that if there were two children born in the house back in the 1890s and, the parents having died, the brother and sister have lived in the house all their lives, when the brother finally dies the sister will have no protection whatsoever. She would be out, so to speak, because she was not the spouse and would not be covered by the amendment.
Exactly the same position would arise if two people had been living together throughout their lives but, because one of them had not obtained a divorce, had never been able to marry. Therefore, on the death of the male, the common law wife would have no protection whatever.
Taking the analogy in the amendment, if the occupier were looked after by a grandparent, which does not seem likely, it appears that the grandparent would be protected. But if, by some mischance, the grandfather had died and the parent were looking after the occupier, that parent would not be protected.
The calibres of the amendments drafted by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) are for the most part satisfactory, but it occurs to me that a few lines have been missed out of this amendment. I gave the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) the opportunity to admit that there was a defect in the amendment, but he failed to do so. I regard the amendment as totally ridiculous and I trust that it will not be pressed.
Throughout the Committee proceedings it was accepted that it was undesirable in this context to complicate the Rent Acts, since they are already complicated enough, by having a wholly diffent code in respect of agricultural tenancies. We have accepted certain features in regard to shared accommodation, but now that we come to tenancies by succession, we have provisions under which a tenancy may pass only once.
I take the point that was put by the hon. Member for Chippenham that we do not want a situation in which somebody, in order to obtain a tenancy, moves into an elderly occupier's house and says "I have come to look after you, grandfather", to which grandfather may reply "I would rather look after myself". As the law stands, if a grandparent dies the tenancy passes perhaps to the grandmother, but if there is a daughter living in the house, under the general Rent Acts there may be difficulty. I know one instance that is causing great anxiety. If it should happen that a son-in-law dies having lived in a house for 20 years, the daughter of the original tenant is protected, but if it should happen that the daughter of the original tenant dies first, the son-in-law

—who by then may be aged 60 or thereabouts—will have no security whatever.
In the Bill, by which we have only one possible succession, we have a different situation and in that respect the Bill is different from Schedule 1 of the Rent Act 1968. I prefer the Bill to be in accord with Schedule 1 of the Rent Act 1968.
In an agricultural tenancy a situation could arise in which an agricultural tenant could live to a ripe old age of perhaps 80 plus and when he dies his widow would be his first successor. What will happen when she dies within a few months of taking over? The daughter, aged 60, has no protection under the Bill.
It is unsatisfactory that the Bill has not been drafted in accordance with the principles of the Rent Act, which ensures that where there is a need for a second succession, that should take place. The Minister must be aware of examples of the lack of an opportunity for a third succession causing hardship under the Rent Act. The lack of an opportunity for a second succession, where a fairly ageing son or daughter finds that he has no security in the home in which he was born, will cause more hardship. I hope that the Minister will further consider this matter to see whether it is appropriate to introduce amendments in another place.

Mr. Charles Morrison: When I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) speaking with such force, clarity and common sense I regretted even more his decision not to come back to the House after the next General Election. I should express my sympathy with him, because he will then be sitting in his country solicitor's office grappling to advise farmers and farm workers on the meaning of this appalling legislation. He was right to emphasise that the two amendments represent an attempt to provide a reasonable compromise after discussions in Committee.
The House should not forget that in Committee hon. Members on this side spent most of their time trying to produce a better balance between the varying interests concerned in the Bill. We had no success, however, because the Government did not show any interest in the views of those who knew more about the


subject than did anyone on the Government side.
I turn now to Amendment No. 34. It is important to lengthen to 12 months the period before a successor to an original occupier can qualify under the clause. Six months is an incredibly short time. The original occupier might suffer from an incurable disease, and a relation might go to live with him or her for a period well in excess of six months and possibly for over 12 months. A period of 12 months would cope better with such a situation. Otherwise, the relation could unwittingly qualify to retain occupation of the House.

Mr. Rossi: I take the point made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) on Amendment No. 33. It is selective, and perhaps the error is that we are being over-selective. The Minister will recall that in Committee hon. Members had considerable misgivings about the way in which the Bill was drawn. It provides that if someone dies and a member of his family has lived with him during the previous six months, that relative will have the protection of the Bill. In terms, that means that virtually any blood relative living en famille for six months preceding the death could become a protected or statutory tenant. We discussed in Committee the situation of someone suffering, unhappily, from a terminal illness. It would be quite easy for a distant relative, learning that this was the gateway into local authority accommodation, or even a tied cottage, to be in residence for the short period of six months and immediately have all the rights of a statutory tenancy.
10.15 p.m.
In Committee we sought to cut down the circumstances of possible abuse in that way. We tried to redefine the members of the family as "child or children". That was objected to on the basis that there were other relatives worthy of consideration who would be excluded by simply saying "child or children" instead of the term "members of the family". The Minister suggested various categories of people against whom our amendment would operate unfairly. He spoke of the grandchild looking after the grandparent for a time. That, therefore, found its way into the amendment. "Child" was already there the

Minister mentioned "grandparent", and that found its way in. But I see on reflection that there are others—parents, for example—whom we should include.
On that basis, I shall not ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to press Amendment No. 33 because I hope that it can be picked up, redrafted and presented in another place. But I invite them to join in voting for Amendment No. 34, which would extend the period of six months to 12, so that someone would have to reside in the house for at least 12 months before the death before obtaining the protection of statutory tenancy.

Mr. Armstrong: As the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) said, this is a matter of great importance, and we had a very interesting and profitable discussion on it in Committee. After hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) and hon. Members opposite, it seems to me that the Government have got the balance about right as between my hon. Friend's views and the views of those who want to be rather more restrictive.
In Committee, the Opposition wished to restrict succession rights under Clause 4(3) to a child or children who had lived with the protected occupier for the two years immediately preceding death. The two amendments now before the House are not quite so restrictive, and I fully admit that, although, curiously enough, as my hon. Friend pointed out, they allow for succession by the protected occupier's grandparents but not by his parents. I share my hon. Friend's view that we want to avoid abuse. At the same time, we do not want to frame legislation with the effect of penalising those who have a genuine right to succession. Therefore, it is a matter of balance.
I should like to make it clear immediately that neither amendment is acceptable to the Government. As I explained in Committee, the succession provisions in the Bill are based, quite properly, despite what the hon. Member for Chippenham said, on the succession provisions in the Rent Act 1968, but with two major differences.
First, under the Bill, the succession rights of the husband or wife of a protected occupier or statutory tenant pay no regard to sex. Under the Rent Acts, on the other hand, the tenant's widow can


succeed to a protected or statutory tenancy if she was residing with him at the time of his death, whereas the tenant's widower must also have been residing with her for the six months immediately preceding her death.
Secondly, under the Bill, there can only be one succession to a protected occupancy or a statutory tenancy, whereas under the Rent Acts there can be two. This difference is in recognition of the special circumstances in which agricultural employers provide accommodation for their workers.
In cases under the Rent Acts it has been held that the succession right conferred on a member of the tenant's family covers children, including step, adopted and illegitimate children, nephews and nieces by blood or marriage, grandchildren, and parents, brothers and sisters of the tenant or his spouse. I believe it right to align the Bill with the Rent Act provisions in this respect and hence attract this humane case law, rather than narrow the succession rights in the way that Amendment No. 33 attempts.
Amendment No. 34 would mean that a member of the protected occupier's family could only succeed to the occupancy if he had lived with the occupier for the 12 months immediately preceding his death. The Government believe that the six-month residence requirement in the Bill, which follows the equivalent requirement in the Rent Acts, first introduced by the National Government in 1933, is the right period. It would be long enough to ensure that

members of the occupier's family do not move into the house simply to succeed to the occupancy, and hence only members of his family who have genuinely resided with him will benefit from the succession provisions.

Mr. Lee: In aligning this with the Rent Act provisions, the Minister has not explained why there should not be two successions. If it is right that there should be a double right of succession in one case, surely it is right in another. Agricultural workers are entitled to t1.1e protection of the Rent Acts in the same way as other people.

Mr. Armstrong: Certainly it is not a case of black and white. There is an argument for having two successions in the Bill, but we came to the conclusion that, because of the special conditions which apply in agriculture and the fact that there is sometimes a need to live on the job, one succession would be a suitable compromise.
I must advise hon. Members to oppose these amendments if hon. Gentlemen opposite press them.

Mr. Awdry: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendnzent, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 34, in page 4, line 44, leave out 'six' and insert twelve '.—[Mr. Awdry.]

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 304.

Division No. 270.]
AYES
10.22 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Crowder, F. P.


Aitken, Jonathan
Bryan, Sir Paul
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)


Alison, Michael
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Buck, Antony
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Arnold, Tom
Budgen, Nick
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bulmer, Esmond
Drayson, Burnaby


Awdry, Daniel
Burden, F. A.
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Baker, Kenneth
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dunlop, John


Banks, Robert
Carlisle, Mark
Durant, Tony


Bell, Ronald
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Dykes, Hugh


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Channon, Paul
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Bennett, Or Reginald (Fareham)
Churchill, W. S.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Benyon, W.
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Elliott, Sir William


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Emery, Peter


Biffen, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Eyre, Reginald


Biggs-Davison, John
Clegg, Walter
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Blaker, Peter
Cockcroft, John
Fairgrieve, Russell


Body, Richard
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Farr, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cope, John
Fell, Anthony


Bottomley, Peter
Cordle, John H.
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Cormack, Patrick
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Boyson, Or Rhodes (Brent)
Costain, A. P.
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Brittan, Leon
Critchley, Julian
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Brotherton, Michael
Crouch, David
Forman, Nigel




Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Lawson, Nigel
Ridsdale, Julian


Fox, Marcus
La Marchant, Spencer
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Fry, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lloyd, Ian
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Luce, Richard
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
McCrindle, Robert
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Macfarlane, Neil
Royle, Sir Anthony


Glyn, Dr Alan
MacGregor, John
Sainsbury, Tim


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
McNair-Wilson, M (Newbury)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Scott, Nicholas


Goodlad, Alastair
Madel, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gorst, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gow. Ian (Eastbourne)
Marten, Neil
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mather, Carol
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Maude, Angus
Shepherd, Colin


Gray. Hamish
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Shersby, Michael


Griffiths, Eldon
Mawby, Ray
Sims, Roger


Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sinclair, Sir George


Grylls, Michael
Mayhew, Patrick
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hall, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hall-Davis. A. G. F.
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Speed, Keith


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter
Spence, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Miscampbell, Norman
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Hannam, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Moate, Roger
Sproat, lain


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Monro, Hector
Stainton, Keith


Hastings, Stephen
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Havers, Sir Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Stanley, John


Hawkins, Paul
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hayhoe, Barney
Morgan, Geraint
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Stokes, John


Heseltine, Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stradling, Thomas J.


Hicks, Robert
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Tapsell, Peter


Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Holland, Philip
Mudd, David
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hordern, Peter
Neave, Airey
Tebbit, Norman


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nelson, Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Neuben, Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Newton, Tony
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Normanton, Tom
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hurd, Douglas
Nott, John
Trotter, Neville


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Onslow, Cranley
Tugendhat, Christopher


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
van Staubenzee, W. R.


James, David
Osborn, John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Viggers, Peter


Jessel, Toby
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wakeham, John


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Percival, Ian
Walker, Rt Hon p. (Worcester)


Jopling, Michael
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pink, R. Bonner
Wall, Patrick


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Walters, Dennis


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Warren, Kenneth


Kilfedder, James
Prior, Rt Hon James
Weatherill, Bernard


Kimball, Marcus
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Raison, Timothy
Wiggin, Jerry


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rathbone, Tim
Winterton, Nicholas


Kirk, Sir Peter
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Younger, Hon George


Knox, David
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)



Lamont. Norman
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lane, David
Rhys Williams. Sir Brandon
Mr. Cecil Parkinson and


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Mr. Fred Silvester


Lawrence, Ivan






NOES


Abse, Leo
Bishop, E. S.
Canavan, Dennis


Allaun, Frank
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cant, R. B.


Anderson, Donald
Boardman, H.
Carmichael, Neil


Archer, Peter
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Carter, Ray


Armstrong, Ernest
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cartwright, John


Ashley, Jack
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Castle. Rt Hon Barbara


Ashton, Joe
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Clemitson, Ivor


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bradley, Tom
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)


Atkinson, Norman
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cohen, Stanley


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Coleman, Donald


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Conlan, Bernard


Bates, Alf
Buchan, Norman
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Bean, R. E
Buchanan, Richard
Corbett, Robin


Beith, A. J.
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Crawshaw, Richard


Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell, Ian
Cronin, John




2153-54


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Price, William (Rugby)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
John, Brynmor
Radice, Giles


Cryer, Bob
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Judd, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davies, Denzll (Llanelli)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kelley, Richard
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kerr, Russell
Rooker, J. W.


Deakins, Eric
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roper, John


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kinnock, Neil
Rose, Paul B.


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lambie, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lamborn, Harry
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dempsey, James
Lamond, James
Rowlands, Ted


Doig, Peter
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Sedgemore, Brian


Dormand, J. D.
Leadbitter, Ted
Selby, Harry


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lee, John
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dunn, James A.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Dunnett, Jack
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Edge, Geoff
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Litterick, Tom
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lomas, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


English, Michael
Luard, Evan
Small, William


Ennals, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Snape, Peter


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McCartney, Hugh
Spearing, Nigel


Evans, John (Newton)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stallard, A. W.


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Steel, David (Roxburgh)



McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Faulds, Andrew
MacKenzie, Gregor
Stoddart, David


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Stott, Roger


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Flannery, Martin
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Madden, Max
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Magee, Bryan
Swain, Thomas


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mahon, Simon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Ford, Ben
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marquand, David
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Freeson, Reginald
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tierney, Sydney


George, Bruce
Meacher, Michael
Tinn, James


Gilbert, Dr John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tomlinson, John


Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, John
Tomney, Frank


Golding, John
Mikardo, Ian
Torney, Tom


Gould, Bryan
Millan, Bruce
Tuck, Raphael


Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Urwin, T. W.


Graham, Ted
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Varley, Rt. Hon Eric G.


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Moonman, Eric
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hardy, Peter
Moyle, Roland
Ward, Michael


Harper, Joseph
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Watkins, David


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Watkinson, John


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Newens, Stanley
Weetch, Ken


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Noble, Mike
Weitzman, David


Hatton, Frank
Oakes, Gordon
Wellbeloved, James


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Ogden, Eric
White, James (Pollok)


Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitehead, Phillip


Hooley, Frank
Orbach, Maurice
Whitlock, William


Hooson, Emlyn
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Horam, John
Ovenden, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Padley, Walter
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Pardoe, John
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Huckfield, Les
Park, George
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Parker, John
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parry, Robert
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pavitt, Laurie
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Woodall, Alec


Hunter, Adam
Pendry, Tom
Woof, Robert


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Penhaligon, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Perry, Ernest
Young, David (Bolton E)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Phipps, Dr Colin



Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Janner, Greville
Prescott, John
Mr. James Hamilton and


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Price, C. (Lewlsham W)
Mr. Frank R. White.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Armstrong: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 5, line 1 leave out 'one' and insert 'any'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendment No. 36.

Mr. Armstrong: These amendments deal with a point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) about which I have written to him They deal with the case of a protected occupier who dies and does not leave a surviving spouse who resides with him at his death, but leaves two or more persons who were numbers of his family and had resided with him for a period of six months immediately preceding his death.
If those persons are in exclusive occupation of the dwelling-house atfer the death under a relevant licence or tenancy, the amendment provides that either they can agree which of them is to be the protected occupier by succession or, if they cannot agree, that the county court shall decide.
Such cases will be very rare because normally on the death of a protected occupier a statutory tenancy will arise. But should such a case arise, the amendment will make the provision in Clause 4(2) the same as the provision in Clause 5(4).

Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this amendment to meet the point we raised in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 36, in page 5, line 3, leave out 'he' and insert
'that person or, as the case may be, such one of the persons in such occupation as may be decided by agreement, or in default of agreement by the county court '.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Clause 6

NO STATUTORY TENANCY WHERE LAND LORD'S INTEREST BELONGS TO CROWN OR TO LOCAL AUTHORITY, ETC.

Miss Maynard: I beg to move Amendment No. 162, in page 6, line 26, leave out subsection (1).

Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss the following amendments:
No. 37, in page 6, leave out lines 39 to 42.
No. 163, in page 6, line 41, leave out from 'borough' to end of line 42.

Miss Maynard: The purpose of Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 is to ensure that all the provisions of the Bill apply to the Crown, the Government and the City of London.
There are two kinds of tenant in the Bill: protected occupant—farm workers who work in the industry—and statutory tenants. As the Bill stands, no farm worker working for the Crown, the Government or the City of London could ever become a statutory tenant. I think that is wrong. The full provisions of the Bill should apply to all these authorities just as it applies to other owners of agricultural tied cottages. It seems wrong that farm workers who work for the Crown, the Government or the City of London should be excluded from the full provisions of the Bill. There may be legal reasons for this. Apart from that, there seems to be no argument against the amendments.

Mr. William Hamilton: I support the amendment. In fact, although I was not a member of the Committee, I was the originator of the amendment. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) was good enough to move the amendment shortly and moderately—too moderately—and he received a very unsatisfactory reply from the Minister. Unless we have a more satisfactory reply tonight, I propose to vote for the amendment against the Government, and I hope that my hon. Friend will support me.
I was astounded, when the Bill was published, that it specifically excluded by name the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, and presumably the private estates of Sandringham and Balmoral.
In Committee, in defence of the omission of these houses from the Bill, the Minister said:
Detailed discussions with the exempted bodies and the local authority associations are in train. I can now say that the Crown, together with other exempted bodies, has every intention of observing the spirit of the Bill's provisions under appropriate administrative arrangements.


What a load of codswallop. What on earth does that mean? Either they are in or they are not in the Bill.
The Minister went on:
Again, in response to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) which dealt basically with the tied cottages owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, there will be extra-statutory arrangements to ensure similar protection for agricultural workers housed and employed by the bodies exempted under the Rent Act 1968."—[Official Report, Standing Committee K, 27th May 1976; c. 183.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighlcy withdrew the amendment on the understanding that the Government would table amendments invoking suctions of the Rent Act 1968. No undertaking was given by the Minister, and I do not see any amendment on the Order Paper fulfilling any kind of promise. As the Minister made no such promise, he was under no obligation to table any such amendment. Therefore, the Bill stays as it is with cottages on those royal estates exempted.
I fear that the Government are resting their case on the verbiage used by the Minister in Committee. Therefore, I want to probe and ask him one or two questions about what is going on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley asked what was meant by the declaration of intent of the Crown to observe "the spirit of the Bill's provisions". If those estates are to observe it, why not put it down in black and white?
10.45 p.m.
Let me inform the Minister of a matter that is directly related to this problem. There is on the statute book the Crown Private Estates Act 1862, Section 8 of which reads:
The private estates of Her Majesty, her heirs or successors, shall be subject to all such taxes, rates, duties, assessments, and other impositions, parliamentary and parochial, as the same would have been subject to if the same had been the property of any subject of this realm".
In other words, that Act specifically states that the private estates of the Crown shall be treated in no way whatsoever differently from the estates or property of any other individual.
The Civil List Select Committee, of which I was a naughty member, went

into this matter in great detail. We were told by the Treasury that that section of that Act had been interpreted by it as meaning that no profits of any kind from the private estates should be taxed in any way whatsoever. The only payment that is made for Sandringham or Balmoral is rates. Apples, vegetables and other kinds of fruit are sold from those estates, and the profits from them are entirely tax free.
Referring to the Duchy of Cornwall the Minister used the phrase "extra-statutory arrangements". What is meant by that? The Minister said that the Government had every intention of observing the spirit of the Bill's provisions. I cite the case of a lady, still living, who was a tenant of the Duchy of Cornwall, the Prince of Wales. The lady's husband died and she was evicted from her farm. She is now 77 or 78 years old, and lives in Marazion in Cornwall. I have visited her. She writes to me as regularly, as she writes to the Prince of Wales. That is a case of a tenant who was evicted by the Duchy of Cornwall.
The undertakings given by the Minister in Committee were unconvincing and nonsensical. Unless he has firm evidence and gives a firm commitment and undertaking that the tenants of these cottages will be covered by the Bill we shall be obliged to vote for the amendment.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I support the amendments in the names of my hon. Friends. First, I should like to deal with the amendment which would require the Bill to apply to the Common Council of the City of London.
I understand and appreciate the reasons for the exclusion of other local authorities because such authorities are democratically organised and controlled. There is some element of public scrutiny over the operations of local authorities' farms and tenants. However, the Common Council of the City of London is generally regarded by sensible people with a belief in democracy as the last rotten borough in the country.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend referring to the place which conferred the Freedom of the City upon the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson)?

Mr. Cryer: Yes. It is the only local authority which does not apply the public accounting procedure applied by other local authorities. It is the only council which can decide whether candidates are fit and proper candidates for membership of the council. It is the only council which insists that a candidate who wishes to stand for election must pay a fee. The council is totally undemocratic, grossly overrated and totally out of line with the representation which the previous Conservative Government established in the Local Government Act 1972.

Mr. Peter Mills: Are there any farms or farm cottages in the City of London?

Mr. Cryer: There may well be. The City has vast resources, and those resources—which include large areas of land—are not open to public scrutiny. They are part of the corporate entity of the Common Council of the City of London.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that the City of London has farms, open spaces, parks and land workers? There are farm workers in Epping Forest. They are very well looked after.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me that useful information. Although, as my hon. Friend says, the workers are well looked after, that may change, and the provisions of the Bill should, therefore, apply to the City.
There is no democratic scrutiny of the proceedings of the Common Council of the City of London and no opportunity for democratic changes to be made, as there is in every other local authority. Therefore, the City should be included in these provisions and the amendments should be made.
The London Government Act 1963 was basically an attempt to wrest power by legalistic means from the Labour-controlled London County Council, but the then Conservative Administration did nothing about the City of London, which was the local authority most ripe for reorganisation. Again, in 1972, when the Conservatives had the opportunity for massive reorganisation they did not touch the City. The City is a self-perpetuating oligarchy, and the amendment would be valuable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said in Committee that if the Minister on Report tabled amendments to invoke the Rent Act 1968 to cover this difficulty he would find many willing supporters among his hon. Friends. In Committee the Minister argued that as the Rent Act 1968 did not apply to the Crown it would be wrong to apply it. I hoped that the Minister would table amendments to ensure total consistency. The Crown, as a corporation sole with a wide range of diverse activities, should fulfil the same requirements as anyone else.
It would be nice if, instead of debating round the subject, we said "All right. Since standards are maintained, what is wrong with putting it into the Bill?" We like people who support the spirit of the law, but we say to the rest of humanity, "You have to observe the letter of the law". Why not say it to the rest of the institutions, including the corporation sole of the Crown?
I am much concerned about this, because we have had precedents created by the Government in the past when they have excepted the Crown. It causes a great deal of concern to ordinary working people employed by the Crown. I am not speaking just of estates owned by the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall but of people like those in the Royal Ordnance Factories, because the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act includes exemption of the Crown. It would cause me great concern if we followed that precedent in giving exemption.
Where an Act applies, questions may be asked of a Minister about the application of the Act—for instance, when evictions are taking place. In the circumstances of this Bill, there would be an opportunity to ask whether advisory committees are performing their function of recommending to local authorities that agricultural tenants should, or should not, be rehoused.
If the Bill has exemptions, we shall be told at the Table Office that there is no ministerial responsibility. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify that. Will he tell us whether we may ask questions about the spirit of the law being applied? Can we ask them in Parliament, the most important scrutinising body in the country? It is essential that hon. Members should have that most


important opportunity to put down questions. It is difficult when certain areas are exempt because the Act does not apply.

Mr. Lee: Perhaps this will give an opportunity to question the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he is not engaged in his spectral duties advising the Government on the International Monetary Fund, asking whether the farm workers on the Duchy of Lancaster estates are being treated in the spirit of the Act.

Mr. Cryer: That illustrates the case neatly, because it took a great deal of trouble by Back Benchers to get the Chancellor to the Dispatch Box to answer questions at all. I well recall, Mr. Speaker, that your predecessor was appealed to on several questions, on many genuine points of order—that is almost unique—to get the Chancellor of the Duchy to the Dispatch Box to answer. How on earth we get the Minister to answer when his functions are exempt from the legislation, I do not know.

Mr. Farr: We are all anxious in the House to see that justice is done and the hon. Member has highlighted, in his own way, the exemptions which some hon. Members obviously agree with. Will the hon. Member not agree that the most glaring exceptions, the most privileged positions, are not those of the Duchy of Lancaster but those of organisations like the National Coal Board and the British Waterways Board, which have 100,000 tied houses, unlike the Duchy. They are the privileged people, and if the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) was fair he would concentrate on them rather than on the others who cannot answer back.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. The Bill applies to agriculture, but I have always maintained that if tied houses in other areas—the NCB and police houses, for example—were brought into the ambit of legislation I would support it. As a fair-minded hon. Member, the hon. Gentleman must recognise the lead given by the National Union of Mineworkers in providing a good organisation which tends to inhibit the

NCB from behaving as a bad landlord. That lead should be followed by other organisations representing workers who live in tied houses.
Scrutiny by hon. Members is all-important. Under the Health and Safety At Work etc. Act 1974 factory inspectors do not have the right to issue improvement and prohibition notices requiring the Crown to carry out statutory duties. How can we find out the number of serious breaches when there is no record of improvement and prohibition notices because they are not allowed to be issued?
I am concerned that we are creating a privileged group of people to whom legislation does not apply. Because it does not apply in, for example, royal palaces, people working in the House are in a much inferior position in many respects compared with the general body of employed people.
I ask my hon. Friend for a comprehensive explanation.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland): I had not intended to intervene in the debates on the Bill, which I understand applies only to England and Wales, but I am encouraged to do so by the intervention of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), who, although he does not represent an English constituency either, deserves support on two grounds, embarrassing though it may be for him to receive it.
First, he is prepared to raise questions which most hon. Members are too mealymouthed to touch. It is a valuable quality in Back Benchers, whether or not we agree with them, if they are prepared to raise such matters. Secondly, one of the most undesirable features of our society is the growing gap between government, in all its forms, and governed. I am not enthusiastic about the Bill, but if the Government believe it to be a good Bill I can see no reason why it should not apply to the Crown. If it is a bad Bill it should apply to no one. Like other hon. Members, I mean the Crown in its corporate capacity.
It has also been mentioned that there are many other tied houses besides agricultural tied houses. I agree. It is a powerful point that if we are to object to tied houses in general we had better


object to them all, starting with Downing Street and going down the scale. If that were done I should have much more sympathy with the Bill.
If hon. Members are courageous enough to raise these rather prickly subjects which offend the Establishment, as the hon. Members for Fife, Central and Keighley (Mr. Cryer) are, at least those of us who in our hearts agree with them should stand up and be counted on their side.
If it is wrong that people should live in tied houses and be subject to eviction when other people are not, the Bill should apply to tenants of the Crown, employees of nationalised industries and public boards, and everyone else.
I therefore put myself on record as having considerable sympathy with the last two speakers and, embarrassing as it may be to them, I wish to say that there are some Liberal consciences which are also troubled by this matter.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I do not always find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) in respect of his views on the Royal Family but I agree with him that this legislation should apply to the the Crown as much as to anybody else. I can see no possible justification for leaving the Crown out of the provisions of the Bill.
We have had an assurance that the Crown intends to preserve the spirit of this Bill. If so, why should it not be bound by it? We know only too frequently that the declaration of intent of local authorities, and indeed housing associations, that they do not need to have Acts applying to them because they are always the perfect landlord, are by no means fulfilled.
Most hon. Members will be aware of occasions when local authorities have acted in the most arbitrary and offensive fashion in relation to their tenants. I do not wish to widen the scope of this debate, but not all local authorities are perfect landlords and not all housing associations are either.
We are considering an amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) seeking to make the Bill apply to the Crown, which I hope the Minister will find it possible to accept. The hon.

Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and other hon. Members have also tabled amendments which would make the Bill apply to local authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) referred specifically to the City of London. As hon. Members will be aware, that is a local authority which has the most abysmal record because its accommodation at the Barbican does not come under the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act or the Rent Act.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that the City of London owns a good number of houses in my constituency? I have had a recent case where it is trying to evict a woman, deserted by her husband, who turned in the tenancy before disappearing to Australia. The local authority is now trying to evict the woman and her family. Would my hon. Friend not agree that an authority with a record of that kind in its ordinary houses really should come under this Bill?

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Most emphatically. My hon. Friend has given an example of the City of London, but I believe that many other local authorities also take an arbitrary view when the tenant departs leaving his wife and children in occupation, and particularly if he leaves owing an amount of rent which is not the wife's responsibility. Many local authorities seek to evict the wife on the ground of rent arrears.
However, in respect of the Barbican, the City of London local authority has a record which should be a source of shame to any local authority because the level of rents which it is charging for its accommodation there are completely contrary to the basis on which it was given consent, in the first place, for the erection of that accommodation. That local authority is, above all, one which should not be given exemption from a Bill of this kind.
Several hon. Members have asked whether or not there are any farms in the City of London. The question arising from the Bill relates to the ownership of the farm. I have very little doubt that the City of London has investment property which would be exempt from the provisions of the Bill. The wording of the Bill relates to the interest of the


landlord. Consequently, if the interest of the landlord is that of the Common Council of the City of London it would, by virtue of the provisions of the Bill, be exempt from it.
I would have preferred Clause 6—and the corresponding Section 5 in the 1968 Rent Act—to be omitted. Everyone must know of examples of local authorities or housing associations abusing the fact that their arbitrary decisions cannot be challenged in the courts. In a case two or three years ago, I was able to challenge eviction proceedings by the St. Albans City Council. The Court of Appeal expressed its vehement disapproval of the way in which the council had acted, but it was only because of a procedural technicality that it was able to send the matter back to the council to see whether it really wished to go ahead in those circumstances. Luckily, the council thought again.
Many councils need to be challenged in the courts in these circumstances. Once one can compel them to state their case before a tribunal, they will think again. They will retract and common sense will prevail. I am sure that the same applies to the Crown. I am sure that it would not wish to defend before the courts an arbitrary eviction procedure or a total disregard of the spirit of the law. But if the Bill does not apply, such a body can be judge in its own cause and sole interpreter of the legislation.
It is preferable that the Bill should apply even to those bodies which we are confident will observe the spirit of the law. If it does not, it will be so easy for them to decide that they have complied with the spirit of the law, and no one will be able to challenge them. I therefore agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and urge the Minister either to accept the amendments or in another place to withdraw the whole of Clause 6. The only justification for it is that one part of the Rent Act law should accord with another. I hope that the Government will correct the Rent Acts generally to make them accord with the Bill as we would amend it, rather than incorporate in the Bill the defects of the 1968 Act.

Mr. Rossi: Amendment No. 37 has not really been discussed yet. It seeks

to remove from the ambit of the clause not merely the City of London but all local authorities and to place them all on an equal basis.
I was fascinated by the discussion of the City of London. As the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas Mann) said, the way in which it behaves is no different from the way in which the majority of local authorities behave when they need accommodation for their own use. The great problem is the lack of security of tenure for council tenants. No doubt the House will have to consider that matter in future. But there seems no reason to single out one local authority.
11.15 p.m.
If we accepted Amendment No. 163 but not Amendment No. 37 we should face an anomalous situation. The City of London owns Epping Forest, where it houses a number of foresters, who would be subject to this measure. The GLC owns and runs Hampstead Heath and has foresters there. It would be ridiculous if one happened to be a forester living in Epping Forest and enjoyed one kind of protection, and if somebody else was a forester on Hampstead Heath and enjoyed another type of protection. I do not think the House would wish to see an anomally of that kind. Surely we should seek to be consistent in these matters.
The issue to which the House must address its mind is whether tenants of local authorities should be exempt from the provisions of the Bill. That is the simple issue. I do not see why local authority tenants should be treated differently. The situation will surely recur. With the advent of the Community Land Act and the urgings of the Department of the Environment and the local authorities to apply for as much land as they can obtain with future development potential, no doubt there will be an increasing amount of farm and agricultural land being brought into the ownership of local authorities.
Until they are ready for development, those farms and agricultural holdings will have to be managed by the local authority because that is the duty placed upon the authority by Parliament. We could have a situation in which a farm is acquired under the Community Land Act and it contains a number of cottages


in which there are protected or statutory tenants protected by the operation of the Bill. Immediately on acquisition by a local authority, the security we are giving them by the Bill would disappear. I do not think that is the intention. Therefore, I urge the House to reconsider this matter.

Mr. Armstrong: There are two matters to which I must refer following an interesting debate.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) reminded the House that there were other workers who lived in tied cottages and suggested that the Bill should cover everybody. Since the consultative document was published I have had a great volume of correspondence from all parts of the country asking my special attention had been given to the agricultural worker and his industry. This is a long-standing grievance of the agricultural worker, and we decided to give priority to the situation in the industry.
From the original publication of the consultative document I have been engaged in discussions with all sides of agriculture. The evidence I have been given by its workers is that they want no more and no less than other industrial workers. In other words, they require the same privileges, obligations and duties.
The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has drawn my attention many times to the fact that the Bill relates to many of the provisions in the Rent Acts. This brings in all kinds of difficulties because of the complicated legislation on rents. I must admit that that gives me many headaches day after day. Therefore, we must consider these amendments in the context of our intention to give priority to agriculture. We do not apologise for that. Anyone who has studied the efforts of agricultural workers over the years would agree with that view of priorities. We have also tried to give them the same protection as other workers have taken for granted for many years. That is all that is being asked by the agricultural workers' union.
Amendment No. 37 is aimed at removing the exclusion of local authorities from the Bill's provisions. Amendments Nos. 162 and 163, supported by my hon. Friends, are aimed at removing the exclu-

sion of the Crown, the Duchy of Cornwall, Government Departments and the Common Council of the City of London. But the amendments do not achieve those aims because Clause 2, in defining a relevant licence or tenancy, applies inter alia, sections 4 and 5 of the Rent Act 1968, and hence a worker housed and employed by those bodies cannot be a protected occupier.
I shall address my remarks to the aims, rather than the specific wording of the amendments. We had a brief discussion on the subject in Committee and I made it clear that these bodies are exempt from the Bill because we have followed, as far as possible, the precedents in the Rent Acts—and they are exempt from those.
I can assure the House that there is no question of the bodies mentioned in Clause 6 being given a special status under the Bill. As my right hon. Friend made clear on Second Reading, we intend that agricultural workers housed and employed by those bodies should in practice enjoy the same benefits and protection as those who are covered by the Bill. Detailed discussions on the administrative arrangements by which this will be achieved are already in train.

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend has already significantly departed from following the 1968 Act on the question whether there should be a double succession and a survivor's right of protection. Why does he now try to take the cloak off that Act to protect himself from extending the scope of the Bill in the way sought by my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi)?

Mr. Armstrong: In my opening remarks I explained why we were following the precedents of the Rent Acts for agricultural workers.

Mr. Cryer: Can the Minister assure the House that hon. Members will be able to table Questions about the application of the spirit of the Bill? Which Minister will answer such questions?

Mr. Armstrong: My hon. Friend asks rather a lot of me. I can only deal with the Rent (Agriculture) Bill. I meant what I said. I believe that no agricultural worker employed by the bodies mentioned in the amendment will be treated differently from those protected and covered by the Bill.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will the Minister explain why there is a specific section in the Bill exempting bodies which he now tells us will not be exempt?

Mr. Armstrong: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard me say that we have followed the precedents in the Rent Acts.
On the broader issues, we are committed to giving statutory security of tenure to local authority tenants, although we believe that measures such as the Bill deserve priority. I would be willing to defend that at any time.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite will agree that it would be wrong to apply this one part of the Rent Act code to those bodies and that they will not press the amendments.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I was interested to hear my hon. Friend say that the relevant sections of the Rent Acts apply irrespective of whether we remove Clause 6. When discussing subsection (2) in Committee, we were assured that the purpose was solely to give a signpost. As a consequence of amendments moved today, the clause clearly applies the relevant provisions of the Rent Acts. If that is the case, we have a double application. Can my hon. Friend explain whether, if we took out or amended Clause 6, it would mean that the signpost clause would simply have to be interpreted accordingly? This is a technical point and I can appreciate that my hon. Friend may be in some difficulty in replying to it now, but it is important.

Mr. Armstrong: It is a technical point. I speak not as a lawyer, but I am assured that the the provision follows similar provisions in the rent legislation and that agricultural workers will not be at a disadvantage because of the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Fairbairn: I echo the remark of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that it is important that a Back Bencher such as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) should express an individual point of view, but as his amendment would only except subsection (1) of

Clause 6 it seems to me to indicate a partiality which destroys the principle upon which the Bill is allegedly based.
I was horrified by the Minister's explanation of Clause 6. He says "We are making exceptions for a number of bodies—for local authorities, the Crown, the Greater London Council, and the rest—but we assure you that those exceptions are meaningless". Anyone who promotes legislation on that basis is idiotic and unprincipled. It it no good saying that it has happened before. It is scandalous that the Establishment—I do not care what form it takes—should be expected from a general principle. That is utterly wrong, and it is ridiculous to say "We are including a provision which includes it, but I promise you that it will not". Yet that is what the Under-Secretary of State's explanation amounted to.
In general principle, if it is wrong that a person who loses his job may lose his house, as the Prime Minister does, equally it is wrong that the farmer should lose not only his employee, but his house as well. If the man is a bad employee, an idle employee, someone who never intended to do the job in the first place and just wanted the house, here is that man's chance.
Let us not look on the farmer as a rich employer. He is just a working man. Having taken on a man and given him a house to go with the job, if he loses that employee he loses the house as well the local authority, exempted under this provision, says "Sorry, but we are unable to give a house". That is why this is such an unprincipled measure. It is partial—as the hon. Member for Fife, Central said, although for the wrong reasons, because he is partial and only wants to take out part of the Establishment—it is wrong, and it is prejudiced. There is an hon. Member opposite who is taking advantage of his present situation with regard to his tenant who will vote for this measure tonight, and that shows the extent of the hypocrisy of every hon. Member opposite.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I had no intention of speaking but my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and others who have just come in—

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders [20th July and this day] to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 432.

Division No. 271.
AYES
11.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Heffer, Eric S.
Prescott, John


Allaun, Frank
Hooley, Frank
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Ashton, Joe
Hooson, Emlyn
Richardson, Miss Jo


Atkins, Ronald (Preeton N)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Atkinson, Norman
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bean, R. E.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Beith, A. J.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rooker, J. W.


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hunter, Adam
Roper, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rose, Paul B.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bradley, Tom
Kelley, Richard
Sedgemore, Brian


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Kerr, Russell
Selby, Harry


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Buchan, Norman
Kinnock, Neil
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Lamble, David
Silverman, Julius


Canavan, Dennis
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Carmichael, Nell
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Spearing, Nigel


Cartwright, John
Lee, John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Swain, Thomas


Clemitson, Ivor
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Lipton, Marcus
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Litterick, Tom
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Corbett, Robin
Loyden, Eddie
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Davles, Bryan (Enfield N)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Tierney, Sydney


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McGulre, Michael (Incc)
Tuck, Raphael


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Madden, Max
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Edge, Geoff
Maynard, Miss Joan
Watkins, David


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mendelson, John
Watkinson, John


Evans,loan (Aberdare)
Mikardo, Ian
Weetch, Ken


Evans, John (Newton)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Whitehead, Phillip


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Flannery, Martin
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Newens, Stanley
Woodall, Alec


Freud, Clement
Noble, Mike
Woof, Robert


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Orbach, Maurice
Young, David (Bolton E)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Ovenden, John



Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Pardoe, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Grocott, Bruce
Parry, Robert
Mr. William Hamilton and


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Bob Cryer.


Hatton, Frank
Penhallgon. David





NOES


Adley, Robert
Boyden, James (Blsh Auck)
Coleman, Donald


Altken, Jonathan
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Conlan, Bernard


Alison, Michael
Brittan, Leon
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brotherton, Michael
Cope, John


Archer, Peter
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cordle, John H.


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cormack, Patrick


Arnold, Tom
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Costain, A. P.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bryan, Sir Paul
Critchley, Julian


Awdry, Daniel
Buchanan, Richard
Cronin, John


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony


Baker, Kenneth
Buck, Antony
Crouch, David


Banks, Robert
Budgen, Nick
Crowder, F. P.


Bernett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bulmer, Esmond
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Bates, Alf
Burden, F. A.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S>


Bell, Ronald
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Davidson, Arthur


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelll)


Benyon, W.
Campbell, Ian
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cant, R. B.
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)


Bitten, John
Carlisle, Mark
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Biggs-Davison, John
Carter, Ray
Deakine, Eric


Bishop, E. S.
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)


Blaker, Peter
Channon, Paul
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Boardman, H.
Churchill, W. S.
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Body, Richard
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Dempsey, James


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Doig, Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clegg, Waiter
Dormand, J. D.


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cockcroft, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Peter
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Drayson, Burnaby


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Cohen, Stanley
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward




Dunlop, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Dunn, James A.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Moate, Roger


Dunnett, Jack
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham.Sm H)
Molyneaux, James


Durant, Tony
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Monro, Hector


Dykes, Hugh
Huckfield, Les
Montgomery, Fergus


Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Moonman, Eric


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
More, Jasper (Lud'ow)


Elliott, Sir William
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Morgan, Geraint


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Hurd, Douglas
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Emery, Peter
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


English, Michael
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ennals, David
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
James, David
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Eyre, Reginald
Janner, Greville
Moyle, Roland


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Mudd, David


Fairgrieve, Russell
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Farr, John
Jessel, Toby
Murray, Rt Hon Ronaid King


Faulds, Andrew
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Neave, Airey


Fell, Anthony
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Nelson, Anthony


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Neubert, Michael


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Newton, Tony


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Normanton, Tom


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Jopling, Michael
O'Halloran, Michael


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Onslow, Cranley


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Ford, Ben
Kaufman, Gerald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Forman, Nigel
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Osborn, John


Forrester, John
Kilfedder, James
Owen, Dr David


Fowler, Gerald (The WreKin)
Kimball, Marcus
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Fox, Marcus
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Kirk, Sir Peter
Palmer, Arthur


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Park, George


Freeson, Reginald
Knight, Mrs Jill
Parker, John


Fry, Peter
Knox, David
Parkinson, Cecil


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lamborn, Harry
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lamont, Norman
Pendry, Tom


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Lane, David
Percival, Ian


George, Bruce
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Perry, Ernest


Gilbert, Dr John
Lawrence, Ivan
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Lawson, Nigel
Phipps, Dr Colin


Gllmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Leadbitter, Ted
Pink, R. Bonner


Ginsburg, David
Le Marchant, Spencer
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Price, David (Eastlelgh)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Price, William (Rugby)


Golding, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Goodhart, Philip
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Goodhew, Victor
Lloyd, Ian
Raison, Timothy


Goodlad, Alastair
Lomas, Kenneth
Rathbone, Tim


Gorst, John
Luce, Richard
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Gourlay, Harry
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
McCartney, Hugh
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Graham, Ted
McCrindle, Robert
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Macfarlane, Neil
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Grant, George (Morpeth)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Gray, Hamish
MacGregor, John
Ridsdale, Julian


Griffiths, Eldon
MacKenzle, Gregor
Rifkind, Malcolm


Grist, Ian
Mackintosh, John P.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Grylls, Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Hall, Sir John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Madel, David
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Hannam, John
Magee, Bryan
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Hardy, Peter
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Harper, Joseph
Marquand, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rowlands, Ted


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Marten, Nell
Royle, Sir Anthony


Hastings, Stephen
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Sainsbury, Tim


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mates, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Havers, Sir Michael
Mather, Carol
Scott, Nicholas


Hawkins, Paul
Maude, Angus
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hayhoe, Barney
Mawby, Ray
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mayhew, Patrick
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Heseltine, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shepherd, Colin


Hicks, Robert
Millan, Bruce
Shersby, Michael


Higgins, Terence L.
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Holland, Philip
Mills, Peter
Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Hordern, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)







Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Silvester, Fred
Tapsell, Peter
Wall, Patrick


Sims, Roger
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Walters, Dennis


Sinclair, Sir George
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Warren, Kenneth


Skeet, T. H. H.
Tebbit, Norman
Weather ill, Bernard


Small, William
Temple-Morris, Peter
Weitzman, David


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Wellbeloved, James


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wells, John


Snape, Peter
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Speed, Keith
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
White, James (Pollok)


Spence, John
Tinn, James
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Tomllnson, John
Whitlock, William


Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Tomney, Frank
Wiggin, Jerry


Sproat, lain
Townsend, Cyril D.
Willey. Rt Hon Frederick


Stainton, Keith
Trotter, Neville
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Stallard, A. W.
Tugendhat, Christopher
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Urwin, T. W.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Stanley, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Varley, Rt. Hon Eric G.
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Viggers, Peter
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Stoddart, David
Wakeham, John
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Stokes, John
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Younger, Hon George


Stott, Roger
Walder, David (Clitheroe)



Stradling, Thomas J.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Strang, Gavin
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Mr. Thomas Cox.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to Orders [20th July and this day], to put forthwith the Questions on the amendments to the Bill, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given.

Amendment made: No. 38, in page 7, line 23, after 1972', insert
'or paragraph 23 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975 '.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Schedule 3

GROUNDS FOR POSSESSION OF DWELLING- HOUSE SUBJECT TO PROTECTED OCCUPANCY OR STATUTORY TENANCY

Amendments made: No. 45, in page 40, line 18, leave out from 'apply' to before' in line 19 and insert
'if the assignment, sub-letting or parting with possession was effected'.

No. 47, in line 26, leave out '(d)'.

No. 49, in line 26, at end insert
'(d) his grandfather or grandmother, or the grandfather or grandmother of his wife, or husband'.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Clause 11

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Amendment made: No. 55, in page 10, line 39, leave out election and insert 'increase'.— [Mr. Armstrong.]

Schedule 4

TERMS OF THE STATUTORY TENANCY

Amendments made: No. 56, in page 42, line 3, after depended ', insert or which itself depended'.

No. 57, in line 17, leave out from 'licence' to the 'in line 18.

No. 58, in line 24, leave out covenant for quiet enjoyment' and insert
'landlord's covenant for quiet enjoyment and the tenant's obligation to use the premises in a tenant-like manner which are'.

No. 64, in page 44, line 19, leave out statutory period' and insert
'rental period of the statutory tenancy'.

No. 66, in line 24, leave out statutory 'and insert rental'.

No. 67, in line 30, leave out from 'shall' to 'than' in line 31 and insert
'take effect from such date as may be specified in the notice, which shall not be earlier'.

No. 69, in line 37, at end insert
'and the decision of the county court shall be final.
(6) In this paragraph "rental period" means a period in respect of which a payment of rent falls to be made or, in relation to a statutory tenancy under which no rent is payable, any period of the statutory tenancy which would be a rental period (as so defined) if a rent were payable under that tenancy; and in Schedule 4 to the Rent Act 1968 as applied by sub-paragraph (3) above any reference to a rental period, or to a rating period during which the rent for a rental period is payable, shall be construed accordingly'.

No. 70, in page 45, line 21, leave out 'election' and insert 'increase'.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Clause 12

AGREED RENTS

Amendments made: No. 71, in page 11, line 27, after 'dwelling-house', insert
'at the time when the agreement is made'.

No. 72, in line 29, leave out from 'registered' to end of line 31 and insert
'(b) where a rent is not so registered'.

No. 73, in page 11, leave out lines 34 to 36 and insert—
'(3A) Where a rent is registered for the dwelling-house at any time after the agreement is made, as from the date from which the registration takes effect the rent payable under the agreement, and any rent payable under subsection (10) below, shall not exceed the weekly or other periodical equivalent of the amount of the rent so registered.
(3B) If the rent payable under the agreement, or under subsection (10) below, exceeds the limit imposed by subsection (3) or (3A) above, the amount of the excess shall be irrecoverable from the tenant.'.

No. 74, in line 40, leave out
'limit under subsection (3) above'

and insert
'limits under subsections (3) and (3A) above'.

No. 75, in page 12, line 13, leave out 'limit under subsection (3) above' and insert
'limits under subsections (3) and (3A) above'.

No. 76, in line 27, after first 'of ', insert 'a notice of increase under'.

No. 77, in line 36, leave out 'subsection (9) above' and insert that subsection.'—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Clause 13

PROVISIONAL RENTS

Amendments made: No. 78, in page 12, line 38, leave out from applies 'to' end of line 4 on page 13 and insert
'where a rent is not registered for a dwelling-house which is subject to a statutory tenancy.
(2) If the rent payable for any period of the statutory tenancy would be less than the rent based on rateable value, it may be increased up to the amount of that rent by a notice of increase served by the landlord on the tenant'.

No. 79, in page 13, line 23, at end insert
'(5A) where a rent is registered for the dwelling-house at any time after the notice is served, as from the date from which the registration takes effect the rent payable in accordance with the notice shall not exceed the weekly or other periodical equivalent of the amount of the rent so registered.
(5B) If the rent payable in accordance with the notice exceeds the limit imposed by subsection (5A) above, the amount of the excess shall be irrecoverable from the tenant'.

No. 82, in page 14, line 1, leave out from 'agreement' to end of line 7 and insert was made'.

No. 83, in line 11, at end insert
'and until the rateable value is so ascertained references in this section to the amount of the rent based on rateable value shall be construed as references to the landlord's estimate of that amount'.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Clause 14

APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF RENT

Amendments made: No. 86, in page 14, line 28, after '45', insert 48'.

No. 87, in page 15, line 4, at end insert
'but section 44(3) of the Rent Act 1968 (no application for registration of a different rent to be made within three years of the last registration) shall not apply to an application for the registration, as respects a dwelling-house which is subject to a statutory tenancy, of a rent different from one which is registered in a part of the register other than the part mentioned in subsection (1) above '.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Clause 15

REGISTERED RENTS

Amendment made: No. 88, in page 15, line 5, leave out from 'applies' to end of line 12 and insert
'where a rent is registered for a dwelling-house subject to a statutory tenancy'.
(2) If the rent payable for any period of the statutory tenancy beginning on or after the date of registration would be less than the registered rent, then, subject to section (Phasing of rent increases) of this Act, it may be increased up to the amount of that rent by a notice of increase served by the landlord on the tenant'.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Clause 16

NOTICES OF ELECTION

Amendments made: No. 89, in page 15, line 31, leave out 'election' and insert 'increase'.

No. 90, in line 33, leave out 'rental'.

No. 91, in line 39, leave out 'election and insert increase'.

No. 92, in page 16, line 7, at end insert—
'(4A) If the county court is satisfied that—

(a) at the time when a notice under section 13 of this Act was served there was no separate rateable value for the dwelling-house, and
(b) the amount specified in the notice is the landlord's estimate of the amount of the rent based on rateable value,
the court may by order amend the notice by substituting for the amount so specified the amount of the rent based on rateable value and, if the court so directs, the notice shall have effect and be deemed to have had effect as so amended'.

No. 93, in line 8, after '(4)' insert 'or (4A)'.

No. 94, in line 13, after '(4)', insert 'or (4A)'.

No. 95, in line 14, leave out 'statutory period' and insert
'period of the statutory tenancy'.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Clause 19

INTERPRETATION OF PART II

Amendment made: No. 96, in page 16, leave out lines 36 to 40.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Clause 25

SERVICE OF NOTICES

Amendment made: No. 97, in page 20, line 14, leave out from 'served' to 'if' in line 15 insert
'on the landlord of a dwelling-house'—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Clause 28

APPLICATIONS TO HOUSING AUTHORITY CONCERNED

Amendments made: No. 99, in page 21, line 36, leave out 'and his' and insert
'by the applicant, and that person's'.

No. 101, in line 37, leave out from beginning to 'for' in line 39 and insert
'the applicant is unable to provide, by any reasonable means, suitable alternative accommodation'.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Clause 29

DUTY OF HOUSING AUTHORITY CONCERNED

Amendments made: No. 105, in page 22, line 20, at end insert 'and'.

No. 106, in line 23, at end insert—
'( ) The authority shall, within seven days of their receiving the application, notify the occupier of the dwelling-house of which possession is sought ("the dwelling-house") that the application has been made'.

No. 107, in line 24, leave out from third the 'to may' in line 25 and insert
'occupier of the dwelling-house'.

No. 108, in line 32, leave out from first the 'to end of line 33 and insert
'occupier of the dwelling-house'

No. 112, in line 43 leave out from 'house' to end of line 44 and insert
'stating—

(a) if they are satisfied that the applicant's case is substantiated in accordance with section 28 above, what action they propose to take on the application;
(b) if they are not so satisfied, the reasons for their decision'.

No. 117, in page 23, line 4, at end insert
'and in assessing under this subsection the priority to be given to meet the applicant's case the authority shall take into account the urgency of the case, the competing claims on the accommodation which they can provide and the resources at their disposal.
( ) Without prejudice to any other means of enforcing the duty imposed by subsection (6) above, that duty shall be enforceable, at the suit of the applicant, by an action against the authority for damages for breach of statutory duty.'.

No. 122, in line 19, leave out
'of which possession is sought'.

No. 123, in page 23, leave out lines 32 to 35.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Clause 30

AGRICULTURAL DWELLING-HOUSE ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Amendment made: No. 125, in page 24, line 35, after 'committee', insert
'and to the person who appoints or designates a committee'.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Clause 31

NOTIFICATION OF DISPOSAL OF DWELLING-HOUSE

Amendments made: No. 128, in page 25, line 10, leave out 'or of an estate or' and insert 'a material'.

No. 129, in line 28, leave out
'(with or without members of his household)'.

No. 130, in line 36, leave out from 'a' to 'by' in line 39 and insert
'material interest otherwise than for valuable consideration or'.

No. 131, in line 41, leave out 'an estate or' and insert 'a material'.

No. 132, in line 43, leave out 'estate or interest and' and insert
'interest and either the contract was entered into before the operative date or'.

No. 133, in page 26, line 1, leave out 'that' and insert 'the'.

No. 136, in page 26, leave out lines 27 to 31.

No. 137, in line 33, at end insert—
'( ) In this section "material interest", in relation to a dwelling-house, means the freehold or a lease the unexpired term of which at the date of the disposal is not less than seven years'.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Clause 32

INFORMATION ABOUT HOUSING ACCOMMODATION

Amendments made: No. 139, in page 26, line 43, after 'held', insert 'in connection'.

No. 140, in page 27, line 7, leave out from 'land' to end of line 11.

No. 141, in line 13, leave out 'or committee'.

No. 142, in line 14, at end insert—
'(2A) The Minister may also give the information so obtained to any agricultural dwelling-house advisory committee which is to give advice under section 30 of this Act concerning any part of the area to which the information relates'.

No. 143, in line 24, after '(2)', insert 'or (2A)'.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Clause 33

KINDS OF INFORMATION OBTAINABLE

Amendments made: No. 144, in page 28, line 4, after 'held', insert 'in connection'.

No. 145, in line 22, after 'held ', insert 'in connection'.

No. 146, in line 44, leave out 'address' and insert 'office'.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Clause 36

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 147, in page 30, line 33, leave out 'Schedule 3 to' and insert 'Part II of'.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Clause 40

PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES

Amendments made: No. 149, in page 32, line 1 at beginning insert
'Without prejudice to section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 (power of local authorities to prosecute or defend legal proceedings)'.

No. 150, in line 1, leave out 'Part II or III of this Act' and insert
'any provision of this Act (except section 33(6))'.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Schedule 7

CONSEQUENTIAL AND MINOR AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 151, in page 48, line 24, after 'is', insert:
'let on or subject to a protected or statutory tenancy to which section 10A of the Rent Act 1968 applies or is'.

No. 152, in page 49, line 44, leave out
'was not a protected occupier or'
and insert:
'is not a'.

No. 155, in page 51, line 38, after 'premises', insert:
'in relation to a dwelling-house which is itself subject to a protected or statutory tenancy to which section 10A above applies'.

No. 156, in page 53, line 20, leave out from '3A' to end of line 29 and insert 'the following Schedule—

SCHEDULE 3A

FURTHER GROUNDS FOR POSSESSION OF DWELLING-HOUSES LET ON OR SUBJECT TO TENANCIES TO WHICH SECTION 10A APPLIES.

CASE I

Alternative accommodation not provided or arranged by housing authority

1. The court is satisfied that suitable alternative accommodation is available for the tenant, or will be available for him when the order for possession takes effect.

2. Accommodation shall be deemed suitable in this Case if it consists of—

(a) premises which are to be let as a separate dwelling such that they will then be let on a protected tenancy, or
(b) premises which are to be let as a separate dwelling on terms which will, in the opinion of the court, afford to the tenant security of tenure reasonably equivalent to the security afforded by Part II of this Act in the case of a protected tenancy,
and, in the opinion of the court, the accommodation fulfils the conditions in paragraph 3 below.

3.—(1) The accommodation must be reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family as regards proximity to place of work and either—

(a) similar as regards rental and extent to the accommodation afforded by dwelling-houses provided in the neighbourhood by the housing authority concerned for persons whose needs as regards extent are similar to those of the tenant and his family, or
(b) reasonably suitable to the means of the tenant, and to the needs of the tenant and his family as regards extent and character.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a) above, a certificate of the housing authority concerned stating—

(a) the extent of the accommodation afforded by dwelling-houses provided by the authority to meet the needs of tenants with families of such number as may be specified in the certificate, and
(b) the amount of the rent charged by the housing authority concerned for dwelling-houses affording accommodation of that extent,
shall be conclusive evidence of the facts so stated.

(3) If any furniture was provided by the landlord for use under the tenancy, furniture must be provided for use in the alternative accommodation which is either similar, or is reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family.

4. Accommodation shall not be deemed to be suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family if the result of their occupation of the accommodation would be that it would be an overcrowded dwelling-house for the purposes of the Housing Act 1957.

5. Any document purporting to be a certificate of the housing authority concerned issued for the purposes of this Case and to be signed

by the clerk to the authority shall be received in evidence and, unless the contrary is shown, shall be deemed to be such a certificate without further proof.

6. In this Case no account shall be taken of accommodation as respects which an offer has been made, or notice has been given, as mentioned in paragraph 1 of Class II below."'.

No. 157, in page 53, line 39, at end insert—

CASE II

Alternative accommodation provided or arranged by housing authority

1. The housing authority concerned have made an offer in writing to the tenant of alternative accommodation which appears to them to be suitable, specifying the date when the accommodation will be available and the date (not being less than 14 days from the date of offer) by which the offer must be accepted.

OR

The housing authority concerned have given notice in writing to the tenant that they have received from a person specified in the notice an offer in writing to rehouse the tenant in alternative accommodation which appears to the housing authority concerned to be suitable, and the notice specifies both the date when the accommodation will be available and the date (not being less than 14 days from the date when the notice was given to the tenant) by which the offer must be accepted.

2. The landlord shows that the tenant accepted the offer (by the housing authority or other person) within the time duly specified in the offer.

OR

The landlord shows that the tenant did not so accept the offer, and the tenant does not satisfy the court that he acted reasonably in failing to accept the offer.

3.—(1) The accommodation offered must in the opinion of the court fulfil the conditions in this paragraph.

(2) The accommodation must be reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family as regards proximity to place of work.

(3) The accommodation must be reasonably suitable to the means of the tenant, and to the needs of the tenant and his family as regards extent.'.

No. 158, in page 54, line 17, at end insert—
'Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975 (c. 6)

28. In section 7(3) of the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975 (Phasing of rent increases) (for the words from "who" to the end substitute the words "to whom subsection (3A) below applies" and after that subsection insert the following subsection—
(3A) This subsection applies to a person who, at the date when the tenancy was granted, was either—

(a) the tenant under a previous regulated tenancy of the dwelling-house or a person


who might succeed the tenant as a statutory tenant, or
(b) a statutory tenant of the dwelling-house, within the meaning of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, whose rent qualified for phasing under section (Phasing of rent increases) of that Act, or a person who might succeed such a tenant as a statutory tenant by succession, within the meaning of that Aot."'—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Schedule 8

TRANSITIONAL

Amendments made: No. 159, in page 56, leave out lines 31 to 38.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

New Schedule

PHASING OF RENT INCREASES

Interpretation

1.—(1) In this Schedule—
noted amount" means an amount noted under paragraph 2(1) below;
period of delay" means a period of two years beginning with the date of registration of a rent;
permitted increase" means the amount by which the rent for any rental period may be increased;
previous rent limit" means, subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the amount which at the date of registration was recoverable by way of rent or would have been so recoverable upon service of a notice or notices of increase under section 15 of this Act;
rental period" means a period in respect of which a payment of rent falls to be made and which begins during the period of delay;
service element" means any amount calculated under paragraph 2 below;
services" means services provided by the landlord or a superior landlord;

TABLE


CALCULATION OF SERVICE ELEMENT


Case
Service element


Case A. A specified amount or proportion was in the previous rent limit attributable to the provision of services, and came to less than the noted amount.
The service element is the difference between the amount or proportion and the noted amount.


Case B. No amount or proportion attributable to the provision of services is specified, but an amount less than the noted amount appears to the rent officer or rent assessment committee to have been attributable to such provision.
The service element is the difference between— (a) an amount bearing to the previous rent limit the same proportion as the noted amount bears to the registered rent, and (b) the noted amount


Case C. No amount appears to the rent officer or rent assessment committee to have been attributable in the previous rent limit to the provision of services.
The service element is the noted amount.


(3) The amount of the service element shall be recorded in the register, and in Case C above may be recorded by adding to the note
under sub-paragraph (1) above a statement that the noted amount is the service element.

"specified sum" means £0·40 per week for a rental period which begins during the first year of the period of delay and £0·80 per week for a rental period which begins during the second year.

(2) Where the rent includes an amount payable in respect of rates, the previous rent limit shall be decreased by the amount so payable.

(3) The Secretary of State may by other substitute for the specified sum, in relation to the first year of the period of delay or the second, or to the whole period, a sum other than the sum mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above.

(4) An order made under sub-paragraph (3) above—

(a) may apply to any specified description of dwelling-houses,
(b) may contain transitional and other supplemental and incidental provisions,
(c) may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order so made, and
(d) shall be contained in a statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either house of Parliament.

Service element

2.—(1) Where—

(a) the registered rent includes a payment in respect of services, and
(b) the rent is not registered as a variable rent in accordance with section 47(4) of the Rent Act 1968 as applied by section 14 of this Act, but
(c) not less than 5 per cent. of the amount of the registered rent is in the opinion of the rent officer or rent assessment committee fairly attributable to the services,

the amount so attributable shall be noted in the register.

(2) In the cases mentioned in the first column of the Table below, the amount of the service element shall be calculated as specified in the second column.

General formulae for calculating increases in rent

3.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (4) below, the permitted increase is an increase to an amount calculated in accordance with the formula set out in sub-paragraph (2) or (3) below, where PRL is the previous rent limit, SE is the service element, RR is the registered rent and SS is the specified sum.

(2) The permitted increase for a rental period which begins during the first year of the period of delay as an increase to the greater of the following amounts namely

(a) PRL +SE+⅓[RR-(PRL+SE)];
(b) PRL+SE+SS

(3) The permitted increase for a rental period which begins during the second year of the period of delay is an increase to the grater of the following amounts, namely

(a) PRL+SE++⅔ [RR-(PRL+SE)];
(b) PRL+SE+SS.

(4) The maximum permitted increase by virtue of this Schedule is an increase to the registered rent.

Subsequent registrations

4.—(1) Where the registration of the rent is in a period of delay beginning with an earlier registration—

(a) from the date of the registration the limitation under the period of delay beginning with the earlier registration shall cease to apply; and
(b) a fresh period of delay shall begin with the later registration.

(2) This Schedule shall apply in relation to any such case as if the previous rent limit were the aggregate of the limit at the date of the earlier registration and any addition permitted under this Schedule in the portion of the earlier period of delay which elapsed before the later registration.

General

5. The amount of any service element or of any amount sought to be noted in the register in pursuance of this Schedule shall be included among the matters with respect to which representations may be made or consultations are to be held or notices given under Part I of Schedule 6 to the Rent Act 1968 as applied by section 14 of this Act.

6. In ascertaining for the purposes of this Schedule whether there is any difference between amounts, or what that difference is, such adjustments shall be made as may be necessary to take account of periods of different lengths; and for that purpose a month shall be treated as one-twelfth and a week as one-fifty-second of a year.

7.—(1) Where a registration takes effect from a date earlier than the date of registration, references in this Schedule to the date of registration shall nonetheless be references to the later date.

(2) Where a rent determined by a rent assessment committee is registered in substitution for a rent determined by a rent officer, the preceding provisions of this Schedule shall have effect as if only the rent determined by

the rent assessment committee had been registered; but the date of registration shall be deemed for the purposes of this Schedule (but not for the purposes of section 15(2) of this Act) to be the date on which the rent determined by the rent officer was registered'.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Schedule added to the Bill.

Order for Third Reading read.

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown and of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Prince of Wales's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Strang: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The central purpose of the Bill is to remove the fear of homelessness that is inherent in the agricultural tied cottage system. Insecurity in agricultural tied cottages has been with farm workers for generations.
The Bill will end once and for all this injustice. There are some good employers and some bad employers among farmers, but that is not the question with which we are concerned. The central issue is that the agricultural worker in a tied cottage has no statutory right to that cottage when he ceases to work on the farm.
Hon Members opposite have suggested that the Government should not have singled out agricultural tied cottages. We have been over the argument time and again and have pointed out that the scale of injustice in the agricultural system is greater than in any other industry. The fact that we have singled out the agricultural tied cottages has meant that we have been able to deal with the real practical problems associated with this form in agriculture.
The Government have accepted as crucial throughout all the discussions that the need to make provision for the farmer who needed a cottage for an incoming worker and that the sensible way to do that was to put a statutory obligation on local authorities to provide alternative accommodation when a farmer genuinely needs a cottage for an incoming worker.

Mr. Pym: Why does the Minister keep talking about a statutory obligation when the Bill clearly does not provide such an obligation? It is a misuse of language and he is misleading the House as he


has constantly misled the public on this issue. There is no statutory obligation of any significance.

Mr. Strang: I reject the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. There were various ways in which the Government could have achieved their aim through local authorities. We could have issued a circular, which is a common way of seeking to influence the decisions of local authorities, but we decided against that and chose to incorporate the provision in the Bill.
A great deal of the Opposition's objection to the Bill relates to their belief that the rehousing obligation placed on housing authorities is not strong enough. I must say to the whole House, as I said to the Committee, that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I disagree with this completely. It is an attitude which obviously cannot be based on any factual knowledge of what will happen and, in making the gloomiest posible estimate of what will happen, the Opposition are making assumptions about the responsibility and competence of housing authorities which are quite unwarranted.
Indeed these assumptions are certainly not shared by the Association of District Councils, the body covering the councils which will have to rehouse. They are in no doubt that this is a firm obligation. They refer to it as
a very high degree of obligation on housing authorities; indeed it is difficult to see what higher degree of obligation there can be—in practice a housing authority could not go beyond this".
I quote again:
such an obligation is higher than that owed to any other class of housing applicant".
It is clear that the housing authorities realise that to "use their best endeavours" is to do their very best. It is difficult to see how they can in practice be asked to do more.
I should point out in this connection that Government Amendment No. 117 adds a new subsection to Clause 29, on the duty of the housing authority, which provides that an applicant for rehousing who is aggrieved by a failure of an authority to discharge its duty—that is, to use its best endeavours to provide suitable alternative accommodation where it is satisfied that a case is made out—has the

right of an action for damages. This right of action for damages does not prejudice any other remedy such as mandamus which the applicant or any other person may have. The right of action could stem, for example, from an incorrect assessment of priorities. This provision discharges an undertaking given by the Solicitor-General in Committee. I am sure it is right that the possibility of an action should be spelt out in this way as a safety net, but I hope that it will never come to that.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) confirmed that the district councils in his area intend to co-operate in carrying out this legislation by doing their best to ensure that it works to the benefit of the agriculture industry. We must ensure that it works in practice. I think that we have now got the right legal framework in which to achieve that objective.
We intend to monitor the Act when it has had a chance to run in. We shall be consulting the interests concerned on the best way of achieving this aim. Undoubtedly, the Government's decision to incorporate a system of agricultural dwelling-house advisory committees, which can be invoked by the farmer or the farm worker—or, indeed, by the local authority—if either party wishes to secure an assessment of the agricultural need and urgency for the cottage for an incoming worker, is practical. We believe that the scheme will work flexibly and quickly.
I should remind hon. Gentlemen opposite, who glibly speak about a dairy farmer, for example, needing a dairyman the next day if his present dairyman should cease to work on the farm, that that problem exists now and can exist to some extent in future under the provisions of the Bill. The problem of the worker who ceases to work on a holding and has to vacate a dwelling for an incoming worker exists now. Although the dairyman has no statutory right to that house, in practice if the farmer has to go to court to secure a possession order invariably it takes about six months. Under this legislative framework we hope to create a situation which will be more responsive to the real needs of the agriculture industry.
I come back to the central point that, although we are introducing a reform


which will meet the practical needs of the industry, the basic purpose is to achieve social justice. We want to remove the insecurity of the farm worker who, for example, may not be getting on well with his boss but knows that he cannot afford to fall out with him because he may lose the roof over his family's heads. We also want to remove the insecurity of the wife of a farm worker whose health is deteriorating severely who knows that if her husband can no longer work on the farm the family will have to move out of the house and perhaps have nowhere to live.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the social justice about which he talks should not extend north of the border?

Mr. Strang: I have already dealt with that matter at some length. I do not think that on Third Reading, having been over the issue raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), I should go into it again in great detail. We have always enacted separate housing legislation for Scotland. The Government are fully committed to a Bill to put these provisions into effect in Scotland. That Bill will be implemented. Scottish Office Ministers have reaffirmed that.
The Bill will bring social justice to the agricultural community. It will remove the insecurity of the young worker with a young family, the insecurity of the wife of the worker whose health is deteriorating, and the insecurity of the older worker who has long since passed retiring age but carries on working as he is concerned that when he stops working he will have nowhere to live. That is what this Bill is about. That is why it is a historic social reform. I commend it to the House.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Rossi: On behalf of the Opposition must register the strongest possible protest at the way in which the Government have treated the Opposition and Parliament over this guillotine motion.
Some 63 groups of amendments were selected. In spite of the fact that we made good progress, only 14 groups were debated. The majority were left unprobed and undiscussed. We have discussed only 25 out of 100 Government

amendments. We detected and pointed out two possibly serious errors in those 25 amendments. The Government agreed that they must take another look at those errors, write to us and possibly correct them in the House of Lords. What is the position of the other 75 Government amendments which we have not had the opportunity to probe and discuss? What about the amendments that the Government put down on the Notice Paper and withdrew at the last moment? The amendments that were not moved were fully considered in Committee.
The Government agreed that we made our case, and we received an undertaking from the Minister. I refer to the question whether a mandatory order for possession should be made where a farm worker refuses an offer of accommodation made to him by a local authority. The amendment proposed by the Government, which would have been accepted by the Opposition, would have meant that if a farm worker refused the alternative accommodation offered by the local authority, the farmer could have gone to the county court and automatically obtained an order for possession.
We are told that the Bill is in the interests of agricultural efficiency and that there is an almost absolute obligation upon a local authority to rehouse a person when efficiency is at stake. However, a court order may not be granted if the farm worker arbitrarily refuses to accept the alternative accommodation offered to him by the local authority. We have had no explanation why the Government have changed their mind.
Where has the Minister of Agriculture been during a debate on a matter that is vital to agriculture? At no stage of the discussion on the Bill has he given the House the courtesy of his presence. We may only conclude how deep is his interest in agricultural matters when he absents himself without explanation.
For my hon. and right hon. Friends who were not here during the discussion on Report, I should like to refer briefly to one of the matters over which the Government are patently in difficulty on their amendments that we have seen. I cannot discuss the amendments that we have not seen. The Government have


altered the definition of "agriculture" to include consumable produce which may be grown in any medium other than land and which may be used for any purpose. Under that definition it is possible that the brewery industry may be included because yeast is grown in a medium other than land. The Minister accepted that this was a possible interpretation of the amendment.
Another interpretation occurs to me. The definition may include scientific research workers who grow cultures in a medium not land which will be used for a purpose other than consumption. The Bill could possibly extend to a great many people other than agricultural workers.
Here we are concerned with agriculture. We are disappointed that we have not been able to discuss our amendments and the Government's amendments, especially as we have not reached the heart of the Bill, Clause 29, which deals with the obligation on the local authority to rehouse when it is necessary for the farmer to obtain possession of his cottage.
We discussed that subject at length in Committee. We discussed "best endeavours", which the Minister told us tonight was almost tantamount to an absolute obligation—the highest possible obligation that can be imposed upon local authorities short of an absolute obligation. He read out the memorandum issued by the Association of District Council which was in precisely those terms. Yet when we probed the matter in Committee we discovered conflicting court cases on the meaning of "best endeavours". In one case of many years ago it was decided that "best endeavours" meant "no stone should be left unturned". To most people that would mean something just short of an absolute obligation. In a more recent case it was decided that "best endeavours" meant to do what can reasonably be done in the circumstances. That is an entirely different standard of duty. Yet that term is used in the Bill in spite of the conflicting line of cases.
What duty does that impose upon local authorities? Why use language on which there is conflict in the courts? Why not use language that is clear and precise and upon which there are firm judicial decisions? That is what we said in

Committee. The Govenment would not accept our arguments and we wished to return to the subject, but we have been denied that opportunity because of the guillotine. The Bill will proceed in this uncertain and unsatisfactory manner to another place.
There are other matters which we wanted to raise in our amendments. One is the right of appeal against a decision by the advisory committee on whether it is in the interests of agricultural efficiency that a farmer should have his cottage. That should not be left to a simple decision without a possible right of appeal.
Where the local authority, in the opinion of one of the parties concerned whether the farmer or the farm worker —does not discharge whatever the duty under the Bill may be, there should be a right of appeal either to a Minister or to a court of law. We have tabled amendments to that effect, but we are not able to discuss them because of the way the Government have treated the House.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Outrageous.

Mr. Rossi: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is outrageous.
What is the justification for the Bill? The justification, we are told, is that, over the generations, agricultural workers have been struggling for security of tenure and somebody 75 years ago, in the embryonic Labour Party, made them a pledge. Now the Labour Party thinks it is time for it to get round to discharging the pledge. It is living in the antediluvian past and the world has moved on. The farming industry is no longer what it was 75 years ago. The relationship between the farmer and the farm worker is entirely different. If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) denies it, as she no doubt will in her bitter class warfare, one need only refer, as we have done in all stages of the Bill, to the number of impartial reports produced by non-politicians on this matter.
Indeed, the Government's own consultative document praised the agriculture industry for utilising 14 per cent. of its housing stock for housing widows, former farm workers who had fallen sick and were unable to work, and those who had


retired. Few industries can compare with that. Yet the Bill is still regarded as necessary in the light of that?
There is other evidence that we have seen: about 1,000 applications for possession a year. But we are told by those who investigate these cases that the majority are bogus, simply to get a high position on a council housing list, not because of bad treatment by farmers or farm workers. In fact, their record is superb.
We are now altering that situation, and the efficiency of perhaps one of the most important industries of our country, the industry upon which a great part of our food supply depends, is to be placed in jeopardy because this measure will mean that farmers will not be able to carry on their business efficiently.
We have discussed the position of the farmer with the dairy herd where it is essential to him to have a stockman, or cowman, on the spot, near the herd, day and night. As a result of this Bill the position can readily and easily arise that they will be denied to the farmer.
The local authority will be obliged, depending upon the degree of the duty we believe we have imposed on it by the Bill, to rehouse as it thinks fit. That presumes, of course, that, even with the best will in the world, the local authority has the resources to rehouse.
Let us say we have a situation where a farmer finds that the farm worker has left to work in the city. The farmer applies to the advisory committee, and the committee says "Yes. It is essential to you to have that accommodation to run your farm efficiently. You must have another cowman to take that cottage." Armed with that, the farmer goes to the local authority and says "Please rehouse. Use your best endeavours." The authority says "Certainly, but we have no houses or money to spend on building or buying houses, because we are in an economic crisis and the Chancellor keeps saying that we must cut back on expenditure."
That is an impossible situation for both farmer and local authority, but it is the situation which the Bill creates. It is a damnable situation for which there is no justification whatever.
If the Minister is so fond of quoting from the memorandum of the Association

of District Councils, as to the extent of the burden which the Bill is placing on it, why does he not read those passages where it is beseeching the Government to give the local authorities additional resources so that they have the means to provide alternative accommodation for which they may be called upon under the Bill?
Councils have asked for a greater facility for lending money to former farm workers who want to buy farm cottages. A circular from the Department of the Environment to all local authorities has said that they should grant loans only to certain classes of people, and former farm workers in the situation created by the Bill are not on that list. Therefore, the Association of District Councils asked us to ask the Minister to add former farm workers. He did not answer, but sidestepped the request. The inference we must draw from an answer he gave several weeks ago is that there is no intention to do that.
Is it not even more unlikely to happen after today's announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that £146 million of local authority loans will be cut? Therefore, where are the resources? Where is the potential for local authorities to cope with whatever duty the Bill may impose upon them? It will not exist. Agriculture and the nation will suffer as a result.
This is a bad Bill. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby to reject it.

12.12 a.m.

Miss Maynard: The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) accuses me of a bitter class attitude. The devotion of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to their class is obvious to me. The farmers have fought as bitterly to retain the tied cottage system as our union has fought to get rid of it. [AN HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Lady does not represent the farm workers."] I am the only sponsored Member for farm workers.

Mr. Temple-Morris: The hon. Lady keeps bringing class into the debate. Do class reasons make us oppose a man's remaining in a house when he has left his agricultural job? Do class reasons make us support a man who wants a job but will remain unemployed if he cannot go into that house?

Miss Maynard: It was not I but the hon. Member for Hornsey who raised the issue of class. A former hon. Member, Ellen Wilkinson, was right when she said that the Tories do not preach class war because they are much too busy practising it.
Conservative Members have complained bitterly about the guillotine, but they guillotined a much more contentious measure, the Industrial Relations Act. They complained tonight about a lack of interest in agriculture by my party. That is an affront to a party which has done more for agriculture, by the 1947 Act, than any other party, although the Labour Party is based on industrial areas and not rural areas.
The hon. Member for Hornsey said that the Bill was about agricultural efficiency. It certainly is not. As the Parliamentary Secretary of State pointed out this Bill is about social justice. I do not accept for one moment that agricultural efficiency is affected by the Bill.
I have not yet had an answer, either tonight or during Second Reading, from hon. Gentlemen opposite about how it is that farm workers, who live in a free house and work for farmers, are quite able to carry on those farms successfully without living in a tied cottage. It was also argued, when we got Saturday afternoons off, that the farming industry would go to ruins and that agricultural efficiency would be ruined. But that has not happened. In a few years' time the tied cottage system as we have known it for many years—this feudal system—will be forgotten. More than that, the Bill will be of great service to the agriculture industry because it will get rid of the feudal image that it has in relation to the tied cottage system.
I believe that the Government have got it absolutely right in relation to local authorities. It is right that the local authorities should use their best endeavours to re-house farm workers. To have made it obligatory would have been wrong in respect of the people on the housing waiting list. It would have meant imposing on local authorities an open-ended commitment which no one could really have expected them to accept.
Many hon. Gentlemen have argued that the tied cottage system is necessary for agricultural efficiency and so on. I

would suggest that the reason why farmers have fought to retain the system is that it gives them control over the labour force so that they can retain that labour force on low wages.
The hon. Member for Hornsey said that the reason why more than 1,000 cases are taken before the courts each year is that it has to be done that way in order to get a house for the farm worker. He said that it is done in collusion with the farm worker and often with the local authorities. That may well be so, but it is also done to solve the farmer's problem. Whatever the reason, it means that our people are dragged through the courts like common criminals.
Often, when I have been with them I have heard about cases of a bad debt followed by a tied cottage case. Our people are taken to court for no other reason than they had become too ill to work in the industry, or they had an accident and could no longer work in the industry, or they had become too old. None of those three things is a crime; yet our people have been taken through the courts for years on those very issues.

Mr. Rossi: Does the hon. Lady realise that this is in the hands of the local authorities themselves? If they make a requirement that they will re-house only where there is a possession order they are compelling the authorities to go through the farce of applying to the county court. All they need to do is alter that rule to say that they will re-house farm workers in these circumstances without the need of a court order. That is all that is required.

Miss Maynard: The hon. Gentleman is saying that the local authorities should solve the farmer's problem at the expense of the rest of the people on the housing waiting list. Where is the justice in that? I do not know what the hon. Member for Hornsey knows about agriculture but he told me—someone who was born and bred in the industry—that the industry has moved on. I would say that in this country we have the most efficient and mechanised agriculture industry in the world. It is one of the most progressive in animal husbandry. In every development that there has been we have been in the forefront. It is only when we come to the treatment of farm workers and the tied cottage system that we go back


to the eighteenth century out of feudal England, and into the twentieth century. As the Minister said, the Bill is about establishing social justice in the countryside.

12.20 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Whatever we on this side may think about the attitudes adopted by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) we must respect the sincerity with which she expresses them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do respect her sincerity. But I also believe that she is fundamentally wrong. She implied that she was the only representative of farm workers in the House. She added that she was the only hon. Member sponsored by the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers. That is true but she is not the only representative of farm workers. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friend represent farm workers, and have done so very well for many years.
I represent a constituency which is both urban and rural. There are many farmers in my constituency, involved with sheep, pigs, beef and dairy farming. They need the tied cottage because of the work which they are doing, and because of their determination to implement the proposals contained in the Government's own document, "Food from our own resources". They are seeking to follow the encouragement given them by the Government to produce more of the food which this nation requires. I therefore have a considerable constituency interest.
Since I had the opportunity of speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, I have received numerous letters from farmers and some from farm workers opposing it. I have not received one single letter from a farm worker in support of the Bill. From what the Parliamentary Secretary said earlier about the social content of the Bill, one would think that farmers were evil dragons. From my dealings with farmers over many years, I know that they are compassionate people, not only where their livestock is concerned but where their workers are involved.
I could quote instances in which farmers, although they had an immediate use for their tied cottages, have allowed their farm workers to stay in them. They have done this for the very reasons

advanced by the hon. Member for Brightside—that the workers have been injured or made ill in their work or because they have retired after many years in the industry. This has often meant considerable sacrifices for the farmers.
Despite the Minister's argument, it is extraordinary that this Socialist Government should have singled out agriculture for action on the tied cottage. What about the National Coal Board and the police authorities? What about certain Ministers of the Crown? I wonder whether they will be guaranteed security of tenure when they shortly lose their positions.
Labour Members often quote the NFU in support of an argument. Certainly they did so in the debates on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in regard to the inheritance of tenancies. But it is not true that the NFU is strongly opposed to this Bill? It has tried to make the Government change their view and amend the Bill but has failed to do so, just as my hon. Friends have failed throughout the debates on the Bill.
As a brief that it has issued makes clear, the NFU has tried to meet the Government halfway. It has suggested that an absolute duty to provide alternative accommodation should be placed on local authorities where a positive recommendation of agricultural need is made by the advisory council. Furthermore, the union suggests that this should be done when the statutory tenant is a retired agricultural worker, a person who has become injured or sick during the course of his employment on the farm; a widow of an agricultural worker who has died in service; or where the advisory committee indicates that there is a particularly urgent need to provide a house on a farm for an incoming worker. The Government have failed to respond to the union—not to the union represented by the hon. Member for Brightside but to the NFU, which represents both farmers and farm workers.
Does the Minister appreciate the position of local authorities? I can say quite openly that the local authorities in my constituency, the Congleton Borough Council and in Macclesfield Borough Council, have always given priority to agricultural workers who have retired. They have followed that policy for many


years. Today we heard that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to cut back on money advanced to local authorities for housing except in areas of deprivation or priority areas. Does that include rural areas? Whatever is the case, the Chancellor is placing an extremely heavy duty on local authorities, and I wonder whether he is aware of what he is doing.
I conclude by quoting a short paragraph from my Second Reading speech:
I challenge the necessity for the Bill. The Government are creating a bureaucratic monster to interfere with the most efficient agricultural industry in the world.
The hon. Member for Brightside agrees that the industry is the most efficient in the world, so I have that confirmation. I went on to say:
There is a fine industrial relations record in the British agricultural industry, which is virtually second to none in any other sector of the economy. There is a fine record of relationship between worker and employer, and I am deeply concerned that the legislation will destroy the fine relationship that has been built up over so many years."—[Official Report, 4th May 1976: Vol. 910, c. 1177.]
This is a bad Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) was right to highlight the disadvantages of the Bill and the damage it would do to the industry. I urge my hon. and right hon. Friends to oppose the measure.

12.28 a.m.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Having listened to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I can only say that I have never heard such nonsense in my life. The behaviour of some Opposition Members towards my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Bright-side (Miss Maynard) leaves a great deal to be desired. The remarks of Opposition Members have lacked objectivity and have been sadly lacking in courtesy when directed at my hon. Friend.
The hon. Gentleman talked of the wonderful record in the industry in terms of the relationship between farmer and farm labourer. He said that it was a well-run industry and had an excellent history. I would remind him that until wage agreements were conducted on a national basis under the aegis of a Labour Government, farm workers historically were among the lowest-paid workers in our community. That was the result of the splendid relationship they were sup-

posed to have had with the farmers for whom they worked.
There is no point in saying that the matters which the Bill seeks to cover have arisen only in the last few years. We know that the last century saw major measures of social reform. We also know that the present century has been noted for some social reform by Conservative and Labour Governments, and indeed also by Liberal Governments. A large section of the population have for many years agreed that the tied cottage system is a feudal relic. As a result the numbers employed in the industry have fallen. The hon. Member for Macclesfield underlined what my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside said about Britain having one of the most efficient farming industries in the world—and that is when about 50 per cent. of farm workers do not live on site. The Opposition's argument does not hold water.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield also paid tribute to his own local authority and said that it gave priority to farm labourers who were dispossessed of their home. A farm labourer is part and parcel of the community and no local authority can give supreme priority to one section of the community.
Are the Opposition really serious in their suggestion that it should be obligatory for local authorities to set up local committees to provide housing? How can they be serious when the main plank in their policy is the sale of council houses? They want to make it mandatory for local authorities to re-house farm laborourers before others whose needs might be as great or greater. Most tied cottages are not in areas of abundant housing. The Association of District Councils has said that to go further would be wrong and that local authorities must use their best endeavours to house all in need. The whole thing would end in the melting-pot if one said that local authorities must re-house, because it is useless to set a mandatory obligation which cannot physically be carried out. The Opposition's argument is phoney. They cannot have it both ways.
We have a different opinion—and that is right, because there is no point in political debate or political parties if we decide that we are all good fellows and have the same view. The Bill represents


a great social reform which is long overdue but which will be shortly on the statute book.

12.34 a.m.

Mr. Joseph Godber: I have not sought to intervene in the debates on the Bill until now but I cannot let it pass without making clear that the line taken by my right hon. and hon. Friends has had my complete and full support throughout. I do not understand why a Bill of this nature was introduced. It is deplorable in its conception and could be dangerous in its implementation.
I have been connected with agriculture throughout my life. I have represented an agricultural constituency in the House for 25 years. I have spent six years in the Ministry of Agriculture in one capacity or another, and I claim to know a certain amount about the subject and the relations between farmers and farm workers. I do not recognise the situation which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) described to the House. Nor do I understand how anyone could continue to hold that view if he or she is in close touch with the farming community.
The relationship between the farmer and the farm workers in the vast majority of cases is far better than the relationship between those hon. Members below the Gangway opposite and those above it. The introduction of a Bill of this kind can do only harm to that relationship because it seeks to create distrust where none existed before. I have known scarcely any cases in my career where real difficulty has arisen, simply because the farming community is such that people do understand and are willing to make allowances for one another in particular circumstances.
It is very seldom indeed that any real case of hardship has arisen in my knowledge. I do not say that such cases have never arisen, but I can recall only two in my experience where there could have been any genuine degree of hardship. It is totally absurd to introduce such a Bill on the basis on which this Bill has been introduced. I fear that we all on this side of the House know that it was introduced merely to carry out a pledge which had been extracted from the Labour Party by the National Union of

Agricultural Workers. I have always had a good relationship with the union and have always understood its feelings on this issue, but I do not believe that it is serving the workers in the industry well in pressing this case, and the Government have failed in their duty in accepting the union's advice.
I regret that the Minister of Agriculture is not here. I do not believe that he is convinced of the need for the Bill, and perhaps his absence tonight is significant. I shall vote against the Third Reading. This is a thoroughly bad Bill, and I know that there is no need for me to urge my hon. Friends to vote against it, too, because we all feel exactly the same about it.

12.37 a.m.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has unconsciously illustrated the need for the Bill. Indeed, the anachronistic attitude which right hon. and hon. Members opposite have displayed amply demonstrates that a Bill of this kind is essential. They are saying, in effect, that the farm workers must rely on the benevolence of the farmers, who are jolly good chaps. I do not dispute that the great majority of farmers are, but the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that he had known some cases of hardship.
Although I practise in town as a lawyer, I have been called to defend certain eviction cases in the country which have involved hardship. They were not put-up jobs to get a council house, but cases where the farmer was determined to get the farm worker out. In one case, the worker had been employed on the farm for a considerable number of years, and the farmer decided that he no longer wished to have him.
Generally speaking, there is a good relationship, but it rests on the employer generally maintaining benevolent relationship towards his workers. In any industry, to have to have to depend on the charity and good will of one's employer is to ensure that the relationship is one where the employee never feels that he has security or freedom. Any one of us who has canvassed in the countryside for the Labour Party is aware of that.
I thought that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) was less than fair


to the Government. We expected him to give a welcome to certain amendments. Admittedly, we did not debate some of them, but he himself took up so much of the time of the House so he cannot complain about that. I am sure that he welcomes Amendment No. 117, which makes it clear that there is right of action in the county court.
The hon. Member referred to Amendment Nos. 41, 42, and 51, which the Government have not moved. These were amendments to which he attached his name. I am very glad that the Government did not move them. Can the hon. Member seriously suggest that it would be desirable to have provisions which say that a county court must make an order for possession if the local authority is offering alternative accommodation, even if the judge thinks that it is unreasonable to make the order? I hope that on reflection he will feel that these amendments were better not being included in the Bill.
When the Bill was introduced I believed that there were ways in which it could be improved. As we proceeded with our discussions in Committee, I think that even Conservatives accepted that by and large the Government had got it right.
Had we imposed an absolute duty on the local authority it would have impinged on the discretion that authority must have. In the overwhelming majority of cases the local authority will lean over backwards to help the farmer, but if it does not do so, the worker must have security of tenure in his home in order to live his life reasonably freely.
I am delighted that the Government have introduced this Bill. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Grantham thinks that it is disgraceful that we should honour our election pledges. I hope that this legislation will remain on the statute book for a very long time.

12.42 a.m.

Mr. David Price: In commenting quickly on the speech of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) I must say that I personally would prefer the benevolence of a farmer to that of most local authorities.
I deeply regret the fact that the guillotine has been placed on this Bill and that we have not had a proper opportunity to debate it. This applies particularly to those of use who were not on the Standing Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary displayed a peculiar doctrine earlier tonight when he chided one of my hon. Friends for asking him to develop a point which he had already developed in Standing Committee. That is not sufficient reason for refusing to develop it at Report stage. A Standing Committee looks at a Bill and then reports back to the House as a whole, and Ministers have to defend their Bill as it comes out of Standing Committee. This has not been done. It is not the Ministers' fault. They have not been given the opportunity to defend the Bill to the rest of the House and I deeply deplore that.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) and the Parliamentary Secretary both spoke in archaic language. The hon. Lady spoke of "feudalism", but most of her speeches on this Bill read like Victorian melodramas—"Maria Marten and Murder in the Red Barn". I wish that some hon. Members opposite would not try, three generations later, to overcome the wrongs of the past, but would address themselves to the problems of the present, and preferably the future.
I am not opposed in principle to extending security of tenure to farm workers. But let us look at the reasons why it is necessary to have tied cottages in agriculture just as it is necessary in the police force, the fire service and many other occupations. I and many other hon. Members have occupied tied cottages, and we have been jolly glad to have them. In terms of the reality of life in agriculture, the farmers most affected by this Bill will be those on small farms, stock farms, or isolated farms, and those whose farm workers live very close to if not actually on the job. That is not always the case.
The farming community, as represented through the NFU, has attempted to meet the Government at least halfway in their dogmatic purpose. They have received little change from that. We come back to the phrase in Clause 29—"best endeavours". I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to examine the terminology of


the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act in respect of access for the disabled to public buildings. He should see how that has worked out. A similar phrase was used there. It deals with "best endeavours" and things that are "practical". The result, as anyone concerned in these matters knows, has been totally unsatisfactory. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security who is responsible for the disabled will confirm that for the hon. Gentleman. I see exactly the same thing happening under this Bill, and therefore I am unhappy about it.
The Parliamentary Secretary spoke about social justice. He mentioned cases which in general terms would be examples of injustice. But is it not unjust for him to forbid the socially-conscious employer, the farmer with a remote undertaking, to ask a man to work unsocial hours looking after animals and equipment and to provide the man with a home on the job? I suggest that to forbid him from doing that, which is the implication of the Bill, prompts one to ask just who is creating social injustice. The Bill will prevent farmers from being good employers. It will reduce the mobility of farm workers and discourage the medium-sized farmer. It will not affect the small farmer because he has hired help. It will be particularly prejudicial to the mixed farm and the dairy farm, encouraging a shift to arable and monoculture farming.
I admit a bias in favour of high farming, as does the ecologist, the naturalist and the historian. This Bill is prejudicial to high farming, and so I am against it.

12.48 a.m.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I have waited a long time to speak in the debate and I am grateful to have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker. I declare my interest as a hill farmer. I have lived on a hill farm all my life. I have listened with great interest to hon. Members on both sides in today's debate. Some of them have overstated their cases.
Let us look at the reality of the situation. I remember farming 250 acres on my father's farm when the net takings were only £60 and we were paying farm workers £5 a year and they were living in. I also remember in my younger days in Aberystwyth seeing hundreds of farm

workers standing on the corners of the streets hoping that a farmer would hire them for a year. I felt sorry for them and I made a pledge then, if ever I were given some authority, in some way to help them.
I am glad to say this evening that I am in favour of the Bill. It will do something to help to solve the problems of our skilled farm workers. Over the last 25 years we have lost half our labour force from the land, mainly because the men have been underpaid. I blame not the farmers but successive Governments over the past 20 years. I include Conservative Governments and Labour Governments. It is only twice in the past 20 years that farmers have been recouped for their costs. That is why we have lost the farm workers from the land. Production has increased, but unless we look after the skilled labour force, protect our farm workers and give them better incentives and houses in which to live, that may not always be the position. I should not like to live in a house where the landlord could turn me out tomorrow morning.

Mr. Charles Morrison: How can the landlord do that?

Mr. Howells: There are ways and means whereby anyone can be turned out. That is why I am supporting the Bill.
We welcomed the Bill on Second Reading as a sensible compromise between the need to provide the security of the Rent Acts for the farm worker—

Mr. Charles Morrison: The hon. Gentleman has said that there are ways and means whereby landlords can get tenants out overnight. Perhaps he will elaborate on that.

Mr. Howells: I said that there are ways and means of getting tenants out from any house.

Mr. Charles Morrison: What are they?

Mr. Howells: There is a need to retain an adequate stock of rural housing to attract and keep labour in the agricultural industry. However, the success of the Bill in satisfying both sides of the industry was dependent to a degree on the obligation placed upon local authorities to rehouse in cases of proven agricultural need.
We took the view, which we reiterated in Committee, that to require local authorities to use their best endeavours to provide suitable alternative accommodation was a legal nonentity equivalent to asking the local authorities to do nothing unless they felt like doing something. We argued that if there is to be any real benefit from the Bill it will be achieved only by placing a mandatory responsibility on local authorities to provide accommodation if the local agricultural housing advisory committee decides that there is a proven case for rehousing on the ground of efficiency.
I must protest that the guillotine has been put on the Bill this evening. I voted for the Bill, but I believe that the Government should have given us another day to discuss it.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Did not the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) give a clear undertaking yesterday that if matters continued as they were, and if the Liberal amendments were not called, the Liberals would not support the Bill on Third Reading?

Mr. Howells: I am not responsible for what my colleague said because I was not here yesterday.

Mr. Beith: I take the opportunity of telling the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) that I gave no such undertaking yesterday. I was present for the debate and I would have heard such an undertaking being given.

Mr. Howells: Perhaps we are getting confused about days.
Since Second Reading we have continued to press for the strengthening of the statutory obligation on local authorities in Clause 29. The Government remained inflexible in Committee but they brought forward some improvements on Report. We recognise that the Bill as it stands, for all its deficiencies and likely problems on implementation, represents an advance on the current situation. We believe that it provides security for the farm worker at the expense of the farmer and efficient agriculture. However, after listening to the Minister's speech and the assurances that we have received, it is my duty to advise my hon. Friends to support the Bill.

12.55 a.m.

Mr. Armstrong: May I, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way at the start of his speech. He will have observed that I have not sought to wind up the debate because of the very large number of my hon. Friends who wish to speak.
The Government have truncated the whole debate and behaved disgracefully throughout this Bill. Would it not be better for the Minister to remain sitting and to listen to what my hon. Friends have to say?

Mr. Rees-Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has always been the practice of this House on Third Readings that, if there are two promoting speeches, there are either two winding-up speeches or none. In this case, the debate was left open, because of the guillotine, to allow short speeches by hon. Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House has been treated outrageously. The Government have castrated their own legislation and are now—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate.

Mr. Armstrong: May I, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are there any precedents for the experience that we are having to suffer tonight?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter of order.

Mr. Armstrong: If the House looks tomorrow at the time taken on Third Reading by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and the time taken by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I, it will be seen that the Opposition Front Bench speech took longer than our combined speeches. The remarks now being made by hon. Members opposite are typical of their exaggeration throughout the Bill.
The Bill will mean the end of a long campaign by agricultural workers to get security of tenure—which most people have taken for granted for a long time.
I have time to mention only one fact.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Armstrong: No. Each year, 1,200 farmworkers are evicted from their tied homes.

Mr. Brotherton: The Foreign Secretary has just come into the House. Does he

welcome the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard)?

It being One o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders [20th July and this day], to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 261.

Division No. 272.
AYES
1.00 a.m.


Abse, Leo
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Allaun, Frank
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Anderson, Donald
Dempsey, James
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Archer, Peter
Doig, Peter
Janner, Greville


Armstrong, Ernest
Dormand, J. D.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Ashton, Joe
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dunn, James A.
John, Brynmor


Atkinson, Norman
Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Barnett. Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Edge, Geoff
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bates, Alf
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Judd, Frank


Bean, R. E.
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Kaufman, Gerald


Beith, A. J.
English, Michael
Kelley, Richard


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Ennals, David
Kerr, Russell


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Kinnock, Neil


Bishop, E. S.
Evans, John (Newton)
Lambie, David


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lamborn, Harry


Boardman, H.
Faulds, Andrew
Lamond, James


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Flannery, Martin
Lee, John


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ford, Ben
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Forrester, John
Lipton, Marcus


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Litterick, Tom


Buchan, Norman
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lomas, Kenneth


Buchanan, Richard
Freeson, Reginald
Loyden, Eddie


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Luard, Evan


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Campbell, Ian
George, Bruce
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Canavan, Dennis
Gilbert, Dr John
McCartney, Hugh


Cant, R. B.
Ginsburg, David
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Carmichael, Neil
Golding, John
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Carter, Ray
Gould, Bryan
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Cartwright, John
Gourlay, Harry
MacKenzie, Gregor


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Graham, Ted
Mackintosh, John P.


Clemitson, Ivor
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maclennan, Robert


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Grant, John (Islington C)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C


Cohen, Stanley
Grocott, Bruce
Madden, Max


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Magee, Bryan


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hardy, Peter
Mahon, Simon


Conlan, Bernard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Marks, Kenneth


Corbett, Robin
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Marquand, David


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hatton, Frank
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cronin, John
Heffer, Eric S.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Hooley, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Horam, John
Meacher, Michael


Cryer, Bob
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham.Sm H)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Mendelson, John


Dalyell, Tam
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Mikardo, Ian


Davidson, Arthur
Huckfleld, Les
Millan, Bruce


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Davies, Denzll (Lianelli)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Moonman, Eric


Deakins, Eric
Hunter, Adam
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)




Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Rooker, J. W.
Tinn, James


Moyle, Roland
Roper, John
Tomlinson, John


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Rose, Paul B.
Tomney, Frank


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Torney, Tom


Newens, Stanley
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Tuck, Raphael


Noble, Mike
Rowlands, Ted
Urwin, T. W.


Oakes, Gordon
Sedgemore, Brian
Varley, Rt. Hon Eric G.


Ogden, Eric
Selby, Harry
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


O'Halloran, Michael
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Orbach, Maurice
Sheldon, Robert (Aahton-u-Lyne)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Ovenden, John
Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Ward, Michael


Owen, Or David
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Watkins, David


Padley, Walter
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Watkinson, John


Palmer, Arthur
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Weetch, Ken


Pardoe, John
Silverman, Julius
Weitzman, David


Park, George
Skinner, Dennis
Wellbeloved, James


Parker, John
Small, William
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Parry, Robert
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
White, James (Pollok)


Pavitt, Laurie
Snape, Peter
Whitehead, Phillip


Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Spearing, Nigel
Whitlock, William


Pendry, Tom
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Penhaligon, David
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Perry, Ernest
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Phipps, Dr Colin
Stoddart, David
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Stott, Roger
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Prescott, John
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Price, William (Rugby)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Radice, Giles
Swain, Thomas
Woodall, Alec


Richardson, Miss Jo
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Woof, Robert


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)



Roderick, Caerwyn
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Mr. John Ellis and


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Mr. Joseph Harper



Tierney, Sydney





NOES


Adley, Robert
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Aitken, Jonathan
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Alison, Michael
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hampson, Dr Keith


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hannam, John


Arnold, Tom
Drayson, Burnaby
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Awdry, Daniel
Dunlop, John
Hastings, Stephen


Baker, Kenneth
Durant, Tony
Havers, Sir Michael


Banks, Robert
Dykes, Hugh
Hawkins, Paul


Bell, Ronald
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hayhoe, Barney


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Elliott, Sir William
Heseltine, Michael


Biffen, John
Emery, Peter
Hicks, Robert


Biggs-Davison, John
Eyre, Reginald
Higgins, Terence L.


Blaker, Peter
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Holland, Philip


Body, Richard
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hordern, Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Farr, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter
Fell, Anthony
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Brittan, Leon
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hunt, John (Bromley)


Brotherton, Michael
Forman, Nigel
Hurd, Douglas


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fox, Marcus
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Buck, Antony
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
James, David


Budgen, Nick
Fry, Peter
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)


Bulmer, Esmond
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Jessel, Toby


Burden, F. A.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Carlisle, Mark
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Jopling, Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Channon, Paul
Glyn, Dr Alan
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Churchill, W. S.
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Goodhart, Philip
Kimball, Marcus


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Goodhew, Victor
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Goodlad, Alastair
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Clegg, Walter
Gorst, John
Kirk, Sir Peter


Cockcroft, John
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Cope,John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Knox, David


Cordle, John H.
Gray, Hamish
Lamont, Norman


Cormack, Patrick
Griffiths, Eldon
Lane, David


Critchley, Julian
Grist, Ian
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Crouch, David
Grylls, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Crowder, F. P.
Hall, Sir John
Lawson, Nigel







Le Marchant, Spencer
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Speed, Keith


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Osborn, John
Spence, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lloyd, Ian
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Luce, Richard
Parkinson, Cecil
Sproat, Iain


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Percival, Ian
Stainton, Keith


McCrindle, Robert
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Macfarlane, Neil
Pink, R. Bonner
Stanley, John


MacGregor, John
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Stokes, John


Madel, David
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Stradling, Thomas J.


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Raison, Timothy
Tapsell, Peter


Marten, Neil
Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Mates, Michael
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Mather, Carol
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Tebbit, Norman


Maude, Angus
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Mawby, Ray
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Trotter, Neville


Mayhew, Patrick
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Tugendhat, Christopher


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Mills, Peter
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Viggers, Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wakeham, John


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Moate, Roger
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Molyneaux, James
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Monro, Hector
Royle, Sir Anthony
Wall, Patrick


Montgomery, Fergus
Sainsbury, Tim
Walters, Dennis


Moore, John (Croydon C)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Warren, Kenneth


More, Jaeper (Ludlow)
Scott, Nicholas
Weatherill, Bernard


Morgan, Geraint
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wells, John


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wiggin, Jerry


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Winterton, Nicholas


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Shepherd, Colin
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Mudd, David
Shersby, Michael
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Neave, Airey
Silvester, Fred
Younger, Hon George


Nelson. Anthony
Sims, Roger



Neubert, Michael
Sinclair, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Newton, Tony
Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Normanton, Tom
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Mr. William Benyon.


Onslow, Cranley

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the permission of the House I propose to put together the question on the five motions on the Order Paper relating to Statutory Instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

EXPORT GUARANTEES

That the Export Guarantees (Limits on Commitments) (No. 21 Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.

TAXES

That the Regional Employment Premium (Continuation of Payment) (Winsford) (Amendment) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the Horse Racing and Betting (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.

That the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) (Amendment) Scheme 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.—[Mr. Tinn.]

Question agreed to.

FILM CENSORSHIP

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Tinn.]

1.13 a.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am most grateful for this opportunity to raise a subject of importance. I declare a long and devoted interest in the cinema. I am currently chairman of the film and television panel of the Yorkshire Arts Association.
I am very much concerned about the arbitrary action of some local authorities. About 369 local authorities have powers of censorship, which they achieved during the recent changeover of local authority powers. During the changeover all local authorities were urged by an organisation called the Festival of Light to exercise their powers of censorship. These statutory powers apply only to children's films, but have been widely used, indeed solely used, for adult films of the X category.
Following the distribution of the circular, 62 local authorities asked cinema managers for advance details, but now only one, Bradford Metropolitan District Council, is pursuing this self-appointed role. Three other authorities, Dudley, Sefton and Cardiff, all attempt to impose conditions when granting licences for cinematograph exhibitions under the Acts of 1909 and 1952 for advance notification of X certificate films.
Under the 1952 Act there is a power of appeal for exhibitors against such unreasonable conditions being imposed. The Cinematograph Exhibitors Assocation successfully appealed against the imposition of advance notification of six weeks at Dudley, 14 days at Sefton and seven days at Cardiff. All such requirements of advance notice were held to be unreasonable. In the last two cases, costs were awarded against the local authorities and I understand that Bradford Council is attempting to impose a condition of 14 days, or 48 hours' notification. Notification of 14 days has already been held to be unreasonable and a time of 48 hours gives no opportunity to show films to the local authority when required in an advance screening before the public showing.
Against the advice of the Association of District Councils, Bradford Council is prepared, apparently, to spend a considerable sum, possible thousands of pounds, in going to court to defend the unreasonable conditions that it is imposing on licensees of cinemas. It may have to pay costs and it will all be coming out of the ratepayers' pockets, and all because it wants to stop films that have received a British Board of Fidm Censors Certificate, which sets national standards, from being shown, films which the Council considers unsuitable for the people of Keighley or Bradford. The same films may be shown in the area of every one of the other 360 local authorities.
The Bradford Tories appear to be ignoring their leader's concern for choice. Choice in this instance is to be dictated by a group of prurient councillors who believe that the films they see will deprave and corrupt others but not themselves. I know of no councillor who has resigned because of depravity as a result of seeing X certificate films. It is arrogant of them to suppose that they alone emerge unscathed but the rest of the population will be corrupted. It is also arrogant of them to assume that there is a difference between the people of Keighley and, say, Leeds, Barnsley, or Nottingham when it comes to common sense in assessing the composition and message of a film.
That is one difference between areas that can emerge and can lead to absurdities such as the film "Yellow Teddy Bears", which Blackburn Council said was too deplorable to be shown, nevertheless being shown in Manchester and coachloads of girls being taken to see it as an awful warning of the perils that might befall them in later life. In February 1975, for example, a Bradford local authority committee decided to ban "Emmanuelle" but never told the Keighley cinema at which it was showing, although in any case that authority was not the licensing authority.
This year "Emmanuelle" had been showing at the Classic Cinema, Keighley, for several days when the cinema was telephoned and then written to with a request or instruction to take the film off exhibition. This was clearly an arbitrary decision and an unreasonable use of the conditions of a licence. At the same time, because of advance publicity


given to the film "The Exorcist", that film was brought to the notice of the local authority and it told the cinema not to show the film in future.
The local authority was warned in February 1975 that the cinema in question was and is facing problems, like many other cinemas with dwindling audiences. If the cinema were forced to close, it would be a great loss of amenity. It would be a double tragedy if it were forced to close by the arbitrary action of a local authority in removing films in this way, which would lead to loss of revenue. The same authority refused to purchase for a general leisure centre a nearby cinema which closed fairly recently. The Classic remains the only cinema which provides such facilities.
The problem of arbitrary action is not confined to Bradford. It frequently arises because of conditions of exhibition licence imposed by a local authority. A breach of condition can lead to a loss of licence and the closure of the cinema. One local authority required 50 per cent. of all films to be in the U or A category, which is impossible if a cinema wishes to show fresh films, because there are many more films in the AA or X categories. That was a condition that a licensee could not observe.
Bradford includes the following provision, paragraph 13, in its model licence rules:
No improper character, prostitute, reputed thief, or other notoriously disorderly person shall be knowingly admitted into or permitted to remain in the licensed premises.
That is an archaic phrase. Terms such as "reputed thief" or "improper character" are almost certainly in breach of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, but an exhibitor could face closure for a breach of that vague and possibly illegal condition. Another local authority imposed a condition requiring an exhibitor to refuse to show any film rejected by any other local authority. It would be impossible for him to know what attitude the other 368 authorities had taken to every film shown.
Such rules apply to every cinema, the small as well as the large. It is especially difficult to have them imposed at a time of economic difficulty. In the first three months of this year admissions were down by 25 per cent. compared with the same period last year.
The cinema is still an important facility. More than 100 million seats are still sold every year. The cinema is an important popular art form which should be encouraged and preserved. The Home Department can play an important part.
The Cinematograph Exhibitors Association and the Association of District Councils have recommended that local authorities should subscribe to the trade Press and pick out any films they might wish to see, should such films be liable to be shown in the council area. That is not entirely satisfactory. The Home Office circular of 16th April 1970, which I understand to contain all the most recent film classifications and model licensing conditions, should be up-dated and the conditions extended to cover the complete conditions, including safety matters, so that local authorities will require no other conditions to be included and the rag-bag of assorted odds and ends such as paragraph 13 of the Bradford rules will disappear.
Secondly, I request my hon. Friend the Minister to use his powers under the Cinematograph Acts of 1909 and 1952 to issue regulations giving legal status to British Board of Film Censors certificates, so that local authorities cannot refuse permission to exhibit a certificated film. They would retain discretion over uncertificated films. The board is basically a trade body, but in spite of that it has a distinguished reputation for setting national guidance standards.
But a trade body set up in 1913 with legal status for its certificates must have greater public representation and responsibility to Parliament. Therefore, it would be unsatisfactory as it stands. I am in no way criticising its reputation or the service it has given, but a body cannot issue anything with statutory force if it does not have some accountability to Parliament.
These measures would clarify and improve an uncertain situation pending the introduction of any legislation arising from the Law Commission report on the law of conspiracy. Secondly, the Government might consider inviting the district auditor to scrutinise expenditure on court cases concerning unreasonable conditions imposed on an exhibitor by a local authority, especially as in the current situation several court cases have


established the nature and measure of these unreasonable conditions.
I recognise that Crown Court cases do not act as a binding precedent for future similar circumstances, but there was a clear guidance in those three cases to local authorities. That should be appreciated by them, especially at a time when public expenditure is under very great scrutiny, as we were made only too well aware today. Bradford, for example, appears to be considering that sort of expenditure when it does not provide sufficient telephones for the disabled or sufficient standards for the maintenance and repair of housing, and there are many other more urgent priorities on which money can be spent.
My hon. Friend should also know that although the 1952 Act gives a right of appeal to the Crown court, it is often difficult for a small exhibitor to go to the court on appeal because of the legal costs involved. That means that many small exhibitors have to accept the conditions without any right of appeal against conditions. It is a doube hardship. I am informed that the position for many cinemas is that if they lose their case on appeal, or do not get costs, they will simply be put out of business because their operating margins are so small.
Lastly, I should like briefly to deal with the subject of films on television, because it seems absurd to have a system of censorship for cinema films which may then be shown five years later, or earlier, on television without any guidance to parents about the contents. My hon. Friend should use his powers to require the BBC and ITV to exhibit certificates prior to transmission and also to state the category of the film in the TV Times and Radio Times and other similar publicity material.
As a parent myself, I should certainly welcome such a guide. I take an interest in the cinema. I read the reviews as regularly as I can and yet I would still welcome a guide. I should have thought that many parents, who may not be as interested in the cinema as I am, would welcome the guide even more because they do not know the contents of a film. A thumb-nail description of the film could be given if the BBFC category were given on exhibition. That would also end

the absurdity of a system which can result in cuts being made in a film for cinema exhibition. I understand that this was the case in respect of a film called "The Killing of Sister George" which was cut and given an X certificate for showing in the cinema but which had the cuts restored when it was shown on television without any indication of its X category because that is not the custom or practice on television.
There is a strong case for ending what seems to be an absurd anomaly whereby films are certificated for the cinema and then shown on television with no guidance whatsoever. I am anxious that my hon. Friend should use his best endeavours to produce an up-dated circular and model rules which are much more comprehensive than those so far issued, so that local authorities cannot mangle them and produce the archaic absurdities I have illustrated. If possible I think that some sort of statutory force should be given to the BBFC certificates so that they would be required to be exhibited for television films.

1.30 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has raised a subject which is not often debated here. I am grateful to him for doing so. If I cannot deal with all his points tonight, I shall certainly write to him to express my views.
I cannot disguise from the House the fact that the censorship system we have in this country is a curious growth. Parliament has never legislated for films to be censored. If anyone had sat down to plan a system, I do not think that we should have ended up with the system we now have.
I accept entirely that the system may give rise to anomalies and to decisions which are all too easy to criticise. Like most of the pragmatic ways in which we have developed institutions in this country, this one has worked tolerably well. The evidence that we should need to change the system and to say that it should have a high place in the Government's social priorities is not available at the moment.
The origins of film censorship lie in the Cinematograph Act of 1909, which in the interests of securing public safety,


particularly from the fire danger, gave local authorities power to license cinemas. Local authorities then began to use those powers to control the films which were shown, and in this they were upheld by the courts.
In 1912, the film industry itself set up a body which evolved into the sort of machinery which my hon. Friend has described. As he said, since the Local Government Act 1972, the film licensing authorities are the district councils, save in London, where the responsibility rests with the Greater London Council. The usual practice is for the licensing authority to attach to the licence granted to a cinema a condition that no film shall be shown without either a certificate issued by the British Board of Film Censors or the prior permission of the licensing authority, and that any film to which the licensing authority objects shall not be shown.
In effect, the licensing authority accepts the generality of the advice of the BBFC, but reserves the right to allow films without a board certificate to be shown and to ban films which possess a certificate from the board. So the board's position is without legal power but, as my hon. Friend said, it is of considerable influence in the industry.
My hon. Friend has earlier drawn our attention to the local authority question and to the specific matter which has given rise to anxiety. I am aware that the mechanics of operating control of films have been discussed among the licensing authorities and within the cinema industry. Bradford council has sought to require advance notice of an "X" film before it is shown, but this is the subject of challenge in the courts and since the matter is sub judice I had better not comment further.
I have tried to make it clear to my hon. Friend that how licensing authorities operate their film censorship functions is a matter for their own discretion. Neither the Home Office nor any other Department of State exercises any powers in censorship matters. Therefore, it would be wrong for a Minister to comment on the decisions of particular authorities. The Government's responsibility is for the system as a system and for any changes in the law which are suggested by an analysis of that system.
The system as it at present operates has, as an integral part, the local option. The BBFC operates very much with this in mind. It is, I suppose, a form of consensus censorship. The board itself recognises the possibility of divergence from the norm which it lays down not only as a necessary safety valve but as a means of preventing censorship from being a dangerously inflexible weapon.
I wish to stress two points about a centralised versus a local option situation. First, a centralised system would avoid the possibility of divergence between local areas as to what was licensed and how the situation was dealt with, and my hon Friend referred to the ways in which perhaps the system operates more restrictively than the norm. But there are instances where licensing authorities take a more liberal view on films and allow a showing of matters that are perhaps not more generally accepted. It would be a disadvantage if in imposing a central control there were the possibility of going further by exclusion as well as embracing the possibility of going to less than the norm.
The proposals that one policy should operate throughout the country raises two sub-questions. First, which policy? Should it be the policy that operates in London on the basis that what is good enough for London should apply to the rest of the country, or a policy involving questions about whether the kind of films now shown in London are or are not to be denied to metropolitan audiences because more provincial attitudes supervene? Secondly, whose policy would it be?
We return to the point on which I agree with my hon. Friend. It could not involve the board in its present form. I have made plain that the existing board is an independent and unofficial body with no legal powers whose role is that of an adviser to the film industry and to local licensing authorities. A formal system of control could not realistically be given to a private body to operate; nor is there any reason to suppose that the present board would relish being given such a power. Where one has a statutory or central control, one has the question of parliamentary accountability very much in mind.
Inevitably, my hon. Friend is led by the logic of that argument towards the


proposition that censorship should be set up on a national basis, with a censoring body instituted by Act of Parliament and with the members of that body appointed by the Home Secretary. That would certainly not be welcome to the Government, because it would seem to involve them directly in questions of censorship. That would only lead to allegations of political interference, but also, having set up a system by which the Government are for one purpose empowered to censor, it would be open to extend the power in other cases where, in the eyes of my hon. Friend and myself, it would be patently undesirable to extend the power.

Mr. Cryer: I must make it clear that I never suggested that the Government should exercise centralised powers of censorship, but I said that there should be accountability to Parliament by the British Board of Film Censors in any centralised rôle.

Mr. John: I accept that entirely. I was trying to show where the logic of the argument led. I am not saying that my hon. Friend would wish to see that happen, but at the moment I do not see how that event could be avoided if there were centralised control. Although it may be somewhat idiosyncratic, I believe that the present method of censorship becomes more attractive when compared with the alternatives.
My hon. Friend did not raise the other alternative—namely, abolishing censorship completely. I think he will accept that although there are arguments against censorship of any kind, the fact is that, even in the shrinking market for cinema that he described, children go to cinema often and particularly in working-class, areas. I know he will agree that the cinema has been a powerful force in shaping his mind and my mind about attitudes in regard to the world generally Where that is so it would be difficult to have complete abolition of censorship.
There are criticisms but the experience of the Home Office is that there have not

been many complaints about the actions of individual authorities. My hon. Friend mentioned conspiracy and the Law Commission Report, which deals with the criminal law in relation to indecency and obscenity. We are contemplating legislation as a result of the report, but that would not alter the censorship system.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend comment on the suggestion of up-dating the model licensing conditions?

Mr. John: I shall come to that when I deal with some of my hon. Friend's specific observations.
The problem of the costs involved in court cases is best dealt with by the courts, which have discretion not only to deal with a licensing authority but with private challenges, as they have recently. My hon. Friend also discussed the expense of the right of appeal. There is a cost factor, but I hope that it does not bear too heavily on the small exhibitor.
The absence of widespread complaints about local authorities shows that there is now a more enlightened and tolerant view. I should study with care my hon. Friend's suggestion about the circular and model licensing conditions. Once we have local licensing, we must leave some discretion with the local authorities, but that is one of the matters about which I shall write to my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend asked about the licensing of television films. Since television is in our homes, it is in many ways a more obvious way in which undesirable films can be seen by people to whom they are not suited, particularly by children—and all parents have experienced that from time to time. The Annan Committee is studying all this—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at seventeen minutes to Two o'clock.